Archive for '2011'

Southern California sites all deserve recognition for their contributions to aviation history

December 21, 2011 4:04 PM by John Keller

The AIAA designated the old TRW Space Park in Redondo Beach, Calif., as an historic aerospace site earlier this month, and it got me thinking about the significance to aviation and aerospace history of many other sites in and around Southern California where I grew up. I was born in Southern California in 1959, and were it not for aviation, my family never would have started there, and I never would have had the opportunity to see a continuing parade of aerospace history pass before my eyes.

My family always was part of the aviation and aerospace scene in the South Bay section of Greater Los Angeles. My dad, an Air Force veteran of the Korean War, moved to Southern California from Montana to attend the Northrop Aeronautical Institute -- now Northrop University -- shortly after leaving the Air Force in 1954. He had been a B-29 aircraft crew chief in the 54th Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron on Guam, which was in place to gather information on tropical cyclones and Soviet nuclear experiments, and on leaving the service he wanted to stay involved in aviation. In those days, Southern California was the place to do that.

Northrop Aeronautical Institute was begun during World War II by aviation pioneer Jack Northrop, who started Northrop Aviation (now Northrop Grumman). He set up an aircraft manufacturing plant next to my home town of El Segundo, where Northrop manufactured aircraft like the F-5 jet fighter and its twin, the T-38 Talon supersonic trainer, as well as the YB-49 Flying Wing, which was the predecessor to the U.S. B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.



Related stories -- Former TRW Space Park, now Northrop Grumman, designated as historic site for electronics and aerospace work -- Museum looks back on 100 years of Navy aviation -- Group keeps vintage aircraft flying; CAF's mission is to educate youths.



Right there in El Segundo was North American Aviation (now Boeing), which manufactured the P-51 Mustang fighter during World War II, and later the F-86 Sabre jet fighter, and even later designed the B-1 strategic bomber. Also in El Segundo was Douglas Aircraft (which later would become McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing after that), which manufactured the DC-3, DC-6, and DC-7 passenger aircraft. Hughes Aircraft was also a neighbor.

Just down the road from us in Redondo Beach was TRW Inc. (now Northrop Grumman), which did classified satellite work and designed guidance systems for intercontinental ballistic missiles. I remember first touring TRW Space Park in 1967 as en eight-year-old Cub Scout.

In this place you couldn't avoid the aerospace business in those days. If your dad or mom wasn't working at one of the aviation plants, then the moms and dads of your friends were. Where I lived, my next-door neighbor worked for North American when that company won the B-1 bomber contract. The man across the street worked for Continental Airlines. My dad worked for Garrett AiResearch, where one day he ran into Cliff Garrett, himself, who helped him work out a particularly frustrating mechanical problem.

So the aerospace business runs in my family; it's in my blood, and was part of the fabric of my upbringing. I couldn't have had that experience anywhere else.

North Korea's new leader

December 19, 2011 3:04 PM by Skyler Frink

Posted by Skyler Frink

Kim Jong-il passed away this Saturday due to a heart attack, according to the North Korean government. The deceased's youngest son, Kim Jong-eun, is taking his father's place as the head of the country.

North Korea has been making headlines fairly regularly due to its nuclear program and the many media-worthy events that have come forth from the country. With this new change in regime can we expect things to be different?

Not much is known about Kim Jong-eun, and whether or not he will continue North Korea's less than stellar history of cooperation on the international stage is unknown. While North Korea's population has been kept in the dark by the government, can Kim Jong-eun maintain that sort of control over the country? The world is full of ways to gain access to information, and an untested leader who may not have the ties that his father had could be incapable of stepping up to the challenge of running a country, especially one as volatile as North Korea.

Kim Jong-eun has had little exposure to the outside world, and was largely protected by Kim Jong-il. He does not have much diplomatic experience, though he was seen with his father during a September visit with the president of Laos. With his lack of experience and young age, maybe he'll bring about some change for the better in North Korea.

Commercial satellite photo reminds us that China is a future global aircraft carrier power

December 14, 2011 4:05 PM by John Keller

Posted by John Keller

The big-deck aircraft carrier is one of the world's most dominant and imposing conventional weapon systems, and the U.S. Navy has been the world's undisputed aircraft carrier power for nearly 70 years since the Battle of Midway in June 1942 when American naval forces sank four Japanese aircraft carriers in what was to be the turning point of World War II in the Pacific.

The modern aircraft carrier is a breath-taking vessel -- a veritable floating city with about 5,000 personnel aboard. A U.S. Nimitz-class carrier, fully loaded, displaces more than 100,000 long tons, has two nuclear reactors that drive four propeller shafts, has a top speed of more than 30 knots, can operate for about 20 years between refueling, and has a carrier air wing of about 90 advanced combat aircraft. This vessel is the largest capital ship in the world.



Bear in mind that the Navy has 10 active aircraft carriers -- all of them Nimitz-class vessels -- and is building two of the latest Ford-class carriers and has one additional Ford-class ship planned.



Related stories -- Navy aircraft carriers: out with the old, and in with the new -- Navy, Northrop Grumman take step toward deploying unmanned jet fighters aboard aircraft carriers -- China's Aircraft Carrier Project.



Since the Battle of Midway, challengers have stepped up, most notably the navy of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and '80s, but no other navy has come close to matching the might of U.S. Navy carrier forces.

Now another challenger is stepping up -- the People's Republic of China. DigitalGlobe Inc.m a commercial satellite company in Longmont, Colo., shot a photo the other day of China's first aircraft carrier on its second sea trial in the Yellow Sea. Undoubtedly U.S. military reconnaissance satellites have picked up this ship before, but just seeing the photo reminds us of what's to come.

This particular carrier originally was an unfinished Soviet carrier that China obtained in 1998 and refurbished. Although many experts believe the ship is years away from being able to launch and recover aircraft in wartime conditions, I'll wager this ship will be combat-ready much sooner than that.

In addition, China reportedly has its first indigenously designed aircraft carrier under construction, which could enter service by 2015. This new Chinese aircraft carrier reportedly has twin hulls, which would enable its navy to service submarines covertly between the carrier's hulls. This vessel might be one-third the cost of a U.S. carrier, and take half the time to build that it takes to put a U.S. carrier to sea.

In the U.S. we worry increasingly about defense budgets, and wonder if the Pentagon over the long term will have the money necessary to build and maintain a carrier force to match what the Navy has today.

One thing's for certain: the Chinese navy is serious about building aircraft carriers to challenge U.S. sea dominance, and China has the money, the technical know-how, and the will to make it happen.

I think we're seeing the beginning of a new global struggle for maritime dominance.

How did that get there? How Iran may have obtained their new UAV

December 12, 2011 1:49 PM by Skyler Frink

With the RQ-170 Sentinel firmly in Iranian hand, we have to wonder what got it there.

A lack of damage to the aircraft suggests it was not fired upon, nor did it have a severe crash. The UAV's landing could have been caused by a glitch in the Army's network, or it could have been the result of electronic warfare.

Of course, Iran is claiming they shot down or hacked the UAV for violating Iranian airspace.

The idea the UAV was brought down by physical force is unlikely due to the lack of damage that was shown in Iranian photographs and video. There are, however, two more likely scenarios in the form of electronic attack or electronic failure.

Now, Iran has been subject to a few severe electronic attacks in their time. Stuxnet, a worm that was unleashed on Iran's nuclear program, proved that Iran would need to evolve their own electronic warfare if they were to compete in today's military environment. Whether this was the cause of the RQ-170's crash is yet to be determined, but the lack of evidence of a physical attack and Iran's claims do make it plausible.

While having the UAV undergo an electronic attack could possibly lead it to an easy descent directly into Iranian hands, other explanations are equally valid. The Department of Defense said they lost control of the UAV earlier in the week, and that it simply ended up descending into Iran with absolutely no control.

The UAV did not suffer a harsh crash, but it has been speculated that the aircraft would have a more leaf-like descent rather than a strict nose-dive like many other aircraft. The large wings may have slowed the vehicle and allowed it to land relatively unscathed.

Until more research has been done, how the UAV got into Iranian hands is unknown. Let's hope this was a rare mistake by the DoD and that no critical information can be gleaned from the UAV's surviving electronics.

Let's hope anti-tamper technology is real, as one of the most advanced UAVs falls into Iranian hands

December 8, 2011 2:03 PM by John Keller

Posted by John Keller

Well, there's little doubt now that a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has fallen into the hands of the Iranian government. The RQ-170 -- essentially an unmanned version of the U.S. Air Force Lockheed Martin B-2 stealth bomber -- recently was captured relatively undamaged in Eastern Iran while flying a reconnaissance mission, most likely from Afghanistan. The downed UAV has been shown on Iranian television.

If the Iranians have this sophisticated unmanned aircraft, then it's a virtual certainty that the Chinese and the Russians will get an extremely close look at the stealth UAV soon -- if they haven't already.

If there was ever a time for an advanced U.S. weapon system to have reliable anti-tamper technology aboard, it's now. Let's all hope that voiced Pentagon support for robust anti-tamper technology in recent years has been in earnest, and not just telling us what we want to hear.



Related stories -- Critical military avionics and other electronic systems designers are using anti-tamper technologies seek to keep data in the right hands -- It is time to take anti-tamper technology seriously -- Advanced anti-tamper technologies are goal of Navy Protection of Electronics Systems solicitation.



Anti-tamper technology comes in a variety of forms, but its function, essentially, is to prevent unauthorized personnel -- like Chinese and Russian intelligence experts -- from reverse-engineering its electronic components and learning its secrets.

Anti-tamper technology most often is designed to sense unauthorized attempts to inspect electronic components such as solid-state memory chips and disk drives and wipe stored data clean without leaving a trace. Some anti-tamper technology even can physically destroy electronic components to keep its intellectual property from prying eyes.

Essentially anti-tamper technology was conceived to prevent any repeat of events like the so-called Hainan Island Incident a decade ago in which a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft was forced down on the Chinese island of Hainan, and Chinese intelligence experts were able to glean important secrets from the plane's electronic gear.

Now we face something similar with the downed RQ-170 Sentinel UAV in Iran. Let's hope U.S. military officials have learned from their past mistakes.

A Naval Academy class ring gives mute testimony to disaster at Pearl Harbor 70 years ago today

December 7, 2011 6:52 AM by John Keller



Posted by John Keller

A ring from the U.S. Naval Academy, class of 1906, is an enduring icon of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor , which happened 70 years ago today, and ushered the United States into World War II. The ring belonged to Navy Rear Adm. Isaac Campbell Kidd, who on that day was commanding officer of the Navy's Battleship Division One. His flagship was the USS Arizona .

Adm. Kidd was born in 1884, and had served as a naval officer all of his adult life. His military experience involved the Navy's Great White Fleet's round-the-world cruise in 1907 to 1909. He had been aide and flag secretary to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and commander of Destroyer Squadron One, Scouting Force.


On the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, Kidd was aboard the battleship USS Arizona , which was anchored at the Hawaiian naval base at Pearl Harbor near the other Pacific Fleet's battleships. The Arizona was a Pennsylvania-class battleship commissioned in 1916.

Even though the ageing warship had been at sea for a quarter century, the huge vessel with its 14-inch guns still was considered to be among the most formidable weapons of its day. The era of the aircraft carrier was yet to come, and battleships were still kings of the ocean on that sunny Sunday morning 70 years ago.

Adm. Kidd was a battleship officer through-and-through. In addition to the Arizona , he had served aboard the battleships USS New Jersey (BB-16), USS North Dakota (BB-29), USS New Mexico (BB-40), and USS Utah (BB-31).



Related stories -- The touch of history: remembering the USS Arizona -- Vengeful American fighter pilots get their pound of flesh at Pearl Harbor -- Pearl Harbor attack 70th anniversary; Two Ga. soldiers recall day of infamy.


When the first Japanese bombs began falling on Pearl Harbor, Adm. Kidd rushed to the bridge of the Arizona . There wasn't a lot he could do, as the ship was moored on Battleship Row next to Ford Island at Pearl Harbor, penned in next to the repair ship USS Vestal , with the battleships USS Nevada , USS Tennessee , and USS West Virginia in front and behind.



Although the Vestal screened the Arizona from Japanese aircraft-launched torpedoes, the Arizona was a stationary target, vulnerable to Japanese bombs. One of those bombs ripped through the Arizona's forward deck, igniting a powder magazine and causing a spectacular fiery explosion that ripped the battle wagon apart, and collapsed the ship's superstructure that contained the ship's bridge.

Adm. Kidd's body was never recovered. Navy divers sent to salvage what they could from the Arizona's wreckage did locate Adm. Kidd's naval academy class ring. They found it in what was left of the Arizona's bridge welded to a bulkhead from the concussion and heat of the explosion.

Divers also found Adm. Kidd's trunk on the sunken Arizona , which is at the USS Arizona Memorial museum at Pearl Harbor.

In a postscript to the disaster at Pearl Harbor, Adm. Kidd's son, Isaac C. Kidd, Jr., was commissioned a Navy ensign 12 days after his father's death at Pearl Harbor. Later he participated in the U.S. invasion of Iwo Jima near the end of World War II in the Pacific. He retired from the Navy in 1978 and died in 1999.

Quadruped robot nearing release

December 5, 2011 3:28 PM by Skyler Frink

By Skyler Frink

I remember back when BigDog , a quadruped robot, was announced by Boston Dynamics. The robot, which was capable of carrying over 300 pounds while traversing terrain that normal vehicles could not, was to be used as a pack mule that could accompany soldiers across difficult terrain.

Big Dog is to be succeeded by the Legged Squad Support System (L3S), but news of the robot has been slim since the contract was awarded in 2009.

The BigDog robot was more than just a robot that took steps forward and managed not to fall over, it could traverse ice in a hilarious albeit functional way, it could stay up after being pushed and it could traverse almost any type of terrain. The robot seemed immensely useful, but it vanished into obscurity. However, for those who have been following the L3S project we are growing ever closer to the newest quadruped robot, AlphaDog , being released.

Boston Dynamics currently plans on finishing the first version of AlphaDog at some point in 2012. I can't wait to see these quadruped robots in use, lightening loads of soldiers no matter where they need to go.

Drone, UAV, UAS ... what do we call that unmanned flyin' thing, anyway?

November 30, 2011 10:16 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

I'm hearing a lot of different names lately for unmanned aircraft. The mainstream media seems to like the word "drone " to describe the kind of sophisticated pilotless aircraft able to find and attack elusive targets in rugged terrain. Many in the trade press use "unmanned aerial system ," or UAS , to describe pilotless aircraft. At Military & Aerospace Electronics , we tend to use "unmanned aerial vehicle ," or UAV.

So what's in a name? To the unbiased, perhaps not much, but I've been covering the developing UAV industry for a long time now, and to me, there are some subtle yet substantial differences.

The biggest problem I have is with the use of the word drone to describe today's advanced-technology UAVs. To me, drone describes a remotely operated aircraft, often used for tracking and target practice, and has no role in describing UAV technology that often as not can operate autonomously. We used to call these kinds of flying targets "remotely piloted vehicles ," or RPVs -- a term I haven't seen or heard in several years.



Related stories -- U.S. defense spending for UAV data links and ground-control stations reached billion-dollar mark in 2010 -- Raytheon debuts ground control system for Scavenger UAV, gains ITAR approval -- Global Hawk UAV makes system flight using MP-RTIP sensor.



I remember visiting China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in Ridgecrest, Calif., back in the early '80s, and saw old Air Force North American F-86 Sabre jet fighters flying around the area. I couldn't figure that one out; F-86s gained fame in the Korean War in the early 1950s during dogfights in famed Mig Alley. These aircraft were hopelessly obsolete even 30 years ago when I was visiting China Lake.

The people there told me those F-86s I saw in the sky had no pilots in them, but instead were remotely operated -- much like a radio-controlled model plane. Navy fighter pilots in what were new aircraft like the F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter used those remote-control F-86s to practice locking weapons on target during air combat maneuvering exercised. Occasionally, I heard, they used to blow those remote-control F-86s out of the sky, but I never saw them do it.

My point is, the word drone describes something simple and unsophisticated, and has no place describing today's UAVs.

Now for the term UAS. I know the Pentagon loves this term, and its officials are encouraging everyone to use it when describing advanced unmanned aircraft. My reasons for not using it are selfish and simple. The term UAV gets about a million searches on Google every month. UAS gets about half that.

I want Google to sweep as many readers to the Military & Aerospace Electronics Website at www.militaryaerospace.com as possible, and I'll continue using UAV for as long as it draws the most online search traffic.

I'll keep an eye on it, though. The minute that UAS gets more search traffic than UAV is when you'll see UAS through the online and print pages of Military & Aerospace Electronics. We'll see how well -- and how soon -- the Pentagon's UAS campaign pays off.

Customizable communication

November 28, 2011 12:41 PM by Skyler Frink

Posted by Skyler Frink

Everyone customizes their phone one way or another now. Whether it's their background or the applications they use, people are getting to communicate and view data on their own terms. Will soldiers be given this luxury with their communication and data?

While on one hand, allowing customizable communication and data could mean that soldiers are getting different pictures of the battlefield, but is that really a bad thing? If one soldier prefers contour lines rather than colors to indicate elevation, is it a big deal that they aren't seeing the same exact thing?

We have the technology to do this, it's right in the devices we use every day. Is it difficult to program, or is there some sort of standardization issue that prevents customization? I'm curious as to whether soldiers will be given the myriad of options civilians are offered when it comes to communication, and I'm curious as to what the major players in the defense industry think about the potential of personalized communication.

Should our soldiers be able to customize how data is displayed, or should there be one standard that everyone in the military has to conform to? Should customization be allowed at all, be limited to minor aesthetic changes or allow warfighters to change everything about how data is displayed?

I'm excited to see the direction the military goes. I know I'd like to see a fully-customizable Command Web system, allowing users to pick and choose how data is displayed on screen.

Federal spending cuts: can't anybody here play this game?

November 23, 2011 10:26 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Here it is, the day before Thanksgiving; too bad the U.S. aerospace and defense industry doesn't have too much to be thankful for.

The so-called congressional supercommittee, put in place to identify federal spending cuts over the next 10 years, has declared failure -- even before its deadline.

The supercommittee was tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts over the next decade, and members simply couldn't do it. Reminds me of a quote from Casey Stengel, manager of the hapless 1962 New York Mets, a team that lost 120 out of 162 games that year. "can't anybody here play this game?" Stengel reportedly asked. The committee's failure means the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) budget faces annual automatic cuts of $55 billion.



Related stories -- More meaningless posturing over "automatic" cuts in the defense budget -- Pentagon's 2012 budget: procurement and UAVs -- Smoke, mirrors, and other hocus-pocus take center stage at U.S. deficit-reduction talks.



Think of that kind of defense cut, if Congress allows automatic cuts to proceed. $55 billion is enough to pay for about 40 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft, 1,200 Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, 885 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, or 12 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Remember, that $55 billion cut could happen every year for 10 years in a worse-case scenario.

Now the federal budget faces potentially automatic deep spending cuts starting in federal fiscal year 2013, which begins in 10 months. DOD programs could be among the hardest hit if Congress does not intervene.

Intervention. That was supposed to be the role of the supercommittee, but partisan bickering doomed negotiations probably before they really got started. Makes me wonder of Congress as an institution is even capable of reducing federal spending.

I have my doubts that Congress will stand by to see these potentially devastating DOD spending cuts take hold. There are simply too many special interests at stake for Congress to ignore. Time will tell, and presidential and congressional elections less than a year away undoubtedly will play a central in how things turn out.

Video Games as Military Education

November 21, 2011 4:19 PM by Skyler Frink


Posted by Skyler Frink

In my video blog I discussed video games in the military, but I feel that there's much more to say on the subject. As a person who has actually played the game that got it all started, America's Army, I feel like I should weigh in on my experience and the impression it gave me. Now, I played America's Army 2, not 3, so there may be some slight differences between my own experiences and those of the current game.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with America's Army, it is a realistic first-person video game with a goal of educating the public on the U.S. Army.

First of all, the game requires you to go through training before you play at all. The training isn't particularly short either, and it took me about an hour to complete it before I could jump into the multiplayer. The training features running through an obstacle course, getting familiar with all the weapons and doing some shooting on a firing range.

This training is designed to help educate players on the Army's standards, and reduce the dropout rate of people in basic. While I can't say I got any more fit than I was when I started playing, I can say I have an understanding of the obstacle course (or at least what sort of challenges there are in it) now and understand some basics about weapons in the army. It really does go into great detail explaining things and drives home that the Army is full of well-trained individuals.

The additional training you can take to become a sniper or medic go into even more detail. Becoming a medic is particularly difficult, as you need to listen to several lectures, complete with slides, and then complete an in-game test. At the very least I took away the ability to make an effective tourniquet, and more respect for those who choose to become medics.

Once in the game you are given the option of many different maps to play on, each with their own scenario. None of these scenarios require killing anyone else (you can reach the other side of the map "bridge crossing" without firing a shot, for example), though it's generally impossible to win or lose without any casualties.

Interestingly enough, there is also a "training" map where each time is representing different teams in the U.S. Army on a training course that uses actual training gear (it looks more like laser tag than actual combat). Instead of being killed when shot, characters sits down if they are eliminated and wait until one team wins. Again, this highlights the professionalism of the Army and gives a peek into what training is like.

It's the professional atmosphere of the game that really gives it some useful educational value. Between the extremely useful in-game audio commands (yes, it includes Hooah!) and the realistic objectives, the game breeds respect and education. Even the community is friendly and welcoming, unlike many online gaming communities. After experiencing the training the players are united by at least one common experience, and the title itself tends to attract a more respectful crowd.

The game gives an extremely positive view of the Army, and does so without being preachy or boring. As a teenager I wasn't playing it to be educated, I was playing to be entertained, but some education couldn't help but rub off on me.

More companies should make games that educate in a way America's Army does: by allowing players to experience every aspect of what you're trying to teach them. From the classroom to the firing range to the battlefield, America's Army gives an impression of what it's like to be in the Armed Forces. Unlike other games that drop you right into combat, America's Army gives context and is all the better for it.

Now to see if I'm still of any use on the virtual battlefield...

Great Reason To Get To Munich This Spring: Avionics Europe to Explore New Frontier of Air Traffic Management

November 19, 2011 7:39 AM by Ernesto Burden

By Ernesto Burden, Publisher




Catching up on some writing and email on a Boeing MD-80 from Toronto to Chicago, I note a message from Neil Walker, the marketing manager of our Avionics Europe show, and that confluence of circumstances inevitably turns my thoughts to two pleasant topics - avionics and Munich. There's a lot to love about well-functioning, best-of-breed avionics - particularly when you are at 33,000 feet. And there's a lot to love about Munich and Bavaria, from the food (and beer!), to the culture, history, to the amazing architecture. For those in the avionics industry, you've got the perfect reason to get yourself there this spring - our tenth anniversary Avionics Europe 2012 show.

The 2012 conference and exposition, March 21-22, is the second year the show will be in Munich. The first year was an exciting renaissance for the event, with 35 percent growth in attendance and tremendous buzz on the floor, not only about renewed optimism in the aerospace industry, an optimism I've encountered quite often this year despite current economic uncertainties, but also about the splendid new location.

Neil's note underscored the practical effect of this optimism. He'd just penned a press release announcing Thales Avionics has decided to sponsor and exhibit at the 2012 event. They are joining the significant likes of the Association of European Airlines, SESAR and EUROCAE. in other words, the conference is really cooking and is poised to well top the success of 2011.

Beyond the opportunity to get myself back to Munich, and the great sponsors and exhibitors we're expecting, there are plenty of other reasons I'm excited about 2012.




Back in September, Military & Aerospace Electronics editor in chief John Keller and I went to Munich to meet with the conference's advisory committee (check out the committee here) to flesh out the program. John, who along with our Avionics Intelligence executive editor Courtney Howard, is heading up on the conference content this year, and the program developed in Munich promises to take last year's momentum and build mightily on it.

Writing this missive from 33,000 feet up in ever more crowded skies, I can't help but be heartened by the high level brainpower being brought to bear during our 2012 event on a central theme, which John describes as "how commercial airlines can improve revenue with an increasing flow of aircraft traffic, while maintaining safety and on-time departures and arrivals. The event will highlight and explore the technological, policy, and design issues faced by aircraft operators and designers as global aviation moves into the new frontier of air traffic management exemplified by SESAR and NextGen."

Speaking of on-time arrivals, it looks like we have one, so I'd best be packing away the iPad for landing. I look forward to seeing you in Munich. Save some pork knuckle and potato dumplings and a liter of Weizenbock for me. Bis bald!




Ernesto Burden is the publisher of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @ aero_ernesto.

Airbus prevails over Boeing in Dubai Air Show passenger jetliner sweepstakes, but no Paris-like blowout

November 17, 2011 3:15 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

In the continuing grudge match over passenger aircraft sales at major global air shows, Airbus in Toulouse, France, has prevailed over Boeing Commercial Airplanes at this week's Dubai Air Show in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. By rough count, Airbus sold a total of 296 passenger aircraft, while Boeing sold 214.

While taking the passenger jetliner sweepstakes at Dubai, the high-profile competition between the world's largest aircraft manufacturers was nothing like the blowout last June at the Paris Air Show in LeBourget, France, where Airbus sold 730 aircraft to Boeing's 142.



Related stories -- Launch of 737 MAX restores competitive balance between Boeing and Airbus for narrow-body jetliner market -- Airbus sets air show sales record at Paris, receiving commitments for 730 aircraft worth $72.2 billion -- Big week for Boeing: jet maker announces its two largest-ever commercial airliner deals this week at Dubai.



At Dubai, Airbus continued with healthy sales of its future fuel-efficient A320neo single-aisle passenger aircraft with deals for 160 of the so-called new engine option aircraft. The A320neo was the star of last summer's Paris Air Show, when Airbus inked deals for 667 of the new aircraft, which will enter service in 2015 or 2016.

Dubai, however, was a different story in global competition to supply the next generation of narrowbody passenger jets for commercial airlines around the world. At Paris, Airbus rival Boeing still had not announced a new aircraft to compete directly with the A320neo. At Dubai, however, Boeing had rolled out its future 737 MAX , which will enter service in 2017.

This past week Boeing closed deals for 201 of its 737 MAX aircraft, besting Airbus in this crucial class of standard jetliners designed for fuel efficiency and environmentally friendly operations. Dubai was among the first chapters of what promises to be a lively and hard-fought competition over the next several years for the single-aisle aircraft market.

So, with the numbers in for Dubai, Boeing sold 201 737 MAX aircraft, 58 777-300ER long-range widebody aircraft, 29 long-range 737-900ER narrowbody aircraft, six 787 Dreamliners, and two 777 freighters. In contrast, Airbus sold 160 A320neo aircraft, 44 A320s, five giant A380 jumbo jets, and five A330-200 widebody aircraft.

This high-profile competition will continue to heat-up over the next year, and the next high-profile match will be at the Farnborough International Airshow next summer in Farnborough, England.

The role of the smartphone on the digital battlefield

November 16, 2011 5:42 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

The Android smartphone and mobile tablet computer soon will play major roles on the digital battlefield , as government agencies join forces with the aerospace and defense industry to find ways to safeguard these technologies from hackers, eavesdroppers, and attempts steal sensitive information by reverse engineering.

U.S. government agencies -- particularly the National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) are beginning to embrace commercially developed data-encryption algorithms , as well as software virtualization technologies that enable classified and unclassified information to run together on the same mobile device.

At the same time, industry is developing Wi Fi technologies to enable fighting forces on the front lines to exchange sensitive and classified information securely among handheld devices like tablet computers , smartphones, and wearable computers for situational awareness, targeting information, and intelligence gathering.



Related stories -- Lockheed Martin provides smartphone tactical network capability to U.S. Marine Corps -- L-3 IEC releases Android smartphone app that enables military users to share full-motion video -- Samsung/Google Nexus S smartphone certified by NASA flies aboard final space shuttle.



It's only a matter of time before a soldier on the front lines observes enemy movement, whips out a rugged smartphone from a vest pocket, takes a picture, and sends that information over a secure and mobile wireless local area network to warn colleagues nearby, as well as to send that time-critical information by satellite up the chain of command.

Military forces are eager to dip into the deep well of commercially developed mobile communications technology such as smartphones and tablets. Still, it almost doesn't matter whether the military wants to use this technology or not; the technology is coming, ready or not.

New recruits to the military forces expect to use the same technologies on the battlefield that they used every day in the civilian world, and the military -- even if it wanted to -- would be virtually powerless to stop this technological tidal wave.

Today, the military's major tasks in this regard are to find commercially developed mobile communications technology that offers good-enough capability, good-enough reliability, and good-enough security for use on the front lines.

The key phrase here is good enough. The days of gold-plated military-specific technologies are drawing to a close, and fast. The biggest and most immediate benefit of this, with little doubt, is involving smartphones, tablets, and other commercial mobile technology.

An update on the Avionics Europe conference and expo March 21 and 22 in Munich

November 15, 2011 9:57 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

We've got an update on the Avionics Europe 2012 conference and exposition, which PennWell is sponsoring March 21 and 22 in Munich. Avionics giant Thales has signed on as a major sponsor and exhibitor at the show. Thales will be the delegate and visitor bag sponsor.

Avionics Europe has the support of Association of European Airlines, SESAR , and EUROCAE , who will all be hosting two-hour workshops relating to the Single European Sky initiative and its influence on the avionics industry.

The theme of Avionics Europe 2012 is Common Sky: Operating in One Air Space. Commercial and military aircraft, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have vastly different missions, yet share many of the same operating requirements -- especially when operating side-by-side in common air space. The conference and expo will highlight and explore the technological, policy, and design issues faced by designers and operators of civil aircraft, military aircraft, and UAVs as global aviation moves into the new frontier of air traffic management exemplified by SESAR and NextGen.

The revolves around two tracks: cockpit avionics and technologies for civil and military aircraft; and aircraft, spacecraft, and UAV sensor payloads, diagnostics, and certification.

The Avionics Europe conference and exhibition saw a 30 percent growth in attendance at the 2011 event, highlighting a return of activity to the aerospace industry following the preceding challenging economic climate. For more information contact Avionics Europe online at www.avionics-event.com .

The best defense is...

November 14, 2011 3:20 PM by Skyler Frink



Posted by Skyler Frink

The best defense has changed throughout time. While the old phrase "the best defense is a good offense" has been popular, is it always true?

As times change it seems the best defense has changed with it. Trench warfare showed us the best defense is, indeed, a good defense. The cold war turned around and showed us that the best defense was a good offense (that you chose not to use, lest the other side use their own good offense).

Now we are at a time where the best defense is early detection. Everywhere from airports to the front lines are utilizing advanced forms of detection, which is currently as the best way of preventing an attack or halting one that has already begun.

We possess systems that can prevent any manner of attack, from our missile intercept systems , anti-torpedo measures and even a vehicle-arresting barrier , if we know an attack is being carried out we are capable of halting it (or at least severely limiting the damage done).

However, these systems are worthless if they can't detect a threat before it is too late. This is what has caused a paradigm shift, and led to many of the technological advancements of the day. From the full body scanners at airports to the new radar systems used by our military, we have begun pushing for more accurate and earlier detection.

After all, what's the point of a system that can stop a missile mid-flight if you don't even know the threat is there in the first place?

The politics and interpretation of DOD's Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) guidelines

November 11, 2011 11:56 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is using a long and nebulous set of guidelines that have a lot of people talking within the defense industry. The guidelines are called
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) , and describe in some detail the relative maturity of evolving technologies considered crucial for military systems like ships, airplanes, and tanks to meet their operational requirements.

The interesting thing about TRAs -- and one that generates substantial conversation and controversy in the defense industry -- is how to play them to best advantage in competitions for military procurement programs, and how companies can game the TRAs to ensure their most important technologies have the most beneficial TRA ratings.

The DOD lists nine different levels of TRAs, ranking so-called critical military technologies from least to most mature. Where the gamesmanship comes in is where on the scale to peg a company's most lucrative technology offerings for upcoming military procurements.



Related stories -- SWIR, infrared HD, and low-light images of France from 17,000 feet -- Boeing Future Combat System shows maturity in joint experiment -- GA-ASI will leverage work on new U.S. Navy study contract to develop high-tech, carrier-launched unmanned aerial system.



Company leaders don't want their core technology offerings to be among the least mature, because newer technologies pose great risk; there's no guarantee these technologies will work every time, and might not work and play well with other system components.

On the other hand, companies don't want their most important products to be among the most mature technologies because many of those are nearing obsolescence. No one wants to design in obsolete technology ... well, at least not on purpose.

The trick is to find that sweet spot in the middle that can describe a company's most important and lucrative technologies as not too new, not too old, but just right -- positioned most advantageously for system procurements with various durations.

DOD officials point out that TRA ratings come from independent review teams of subject matter experts, but we'd be silly if we didn't think each company had a substantial say in how their products will be rated.

A TRA, in essence, is a formal, systematic, metrics-based process and accompanying report that assesses the maturity of military technologies -- hardware or software -- which are necessary for military systems to meet their operational requirements. Here are the nine different TRA levels:

TRA 1, the lowest level of technology readiness, essentially is still laboratory technology just being considered for applications. TRA 2 is a technology just being translated into applications. TRA 3 refers to an experimental technology. TRA 4 refers to breadboard technologies. TRA 5 are technologies in advanced development. TRA 6 is prototype technology for specific applications. TRA 7 refers to demonstration and validation technology. TRA 8 refers to proven technologies. TRA 9 refers to technologies with a reasonably long track record in actual applications, and which might be on the downslope toward obsolescence.

DOD officials keep the TRA guidelines vague on purpose, so sometimes it's a guessing game for companies to determine the best TRA ratings. It's a fair bet that TRAs will remain a hot topic at the bar and around the water cooler.

Space geeks rejoice: NASA news abounds

November 8, 2011 9:02 PM by Courtney Howard



I had the opportunity to meet with high-level executives at military and aerospace technology firms throughout the Pacific Northwest in the past couple weeks. I had the pleasure of discussing the avionics market, including military, commercial, and general aviation with professionals at industry firms VPT, Crane Aerospace & Electronics, Radisys, Martek Power, EDT, and others.

I learned in numerous face-to-face meetings that, when it comes to the current and future health of the industry, optimism abounds. Demand for avionics is growing across multiple segments and locales; among them are: the Asia-Pacific region, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and space. Space avionics sub-segments--including spacecraft systems, unmanned rovers, and satellites--are active and gaining considerable attention.

NASA officials have made several announcements, just in this first week of November. Among them is a rare opportunity.

For the first time in three decades, the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida is open to tourists. Guests at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex can take a tour of the 525-foot-tall VAB, where myriad rockets have been built—ranging from the first Saturn V rocket in the late 1960s to the last space shuttle, the STS-135 Atlantis.



The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), being called the largest and most capable rover to be sent to another planet, is scheduled to launch the morning of Nov. 25. The spacecraft will carry the car-sized Curiosity rover to the surface of Mars in Aug. 2010.

NASA officials, together with engineers from Lockheed Martin Space Systems, also plan an unmanned flight test of the Orion spacecraft in early 2014. The test of Lockheed Martin’s multi-purpose crew vehicle supports NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS).

NASA’s Deep Space Network antenna in California captured radar images of the aircraft carrier-sized Asteroid 2005 YU55 passing roughly 860,000 miles away from Earth.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has appointed Mason Peck, a professor at Cornell University, to be the agency’s chief technologist starting in January.

The Juno spacecraft has launched on its five-year voyage to Jupiter, with help from American Pacific Corp.'s in-space propulsion subsidiary (AMPAC-ISP).



NASA engineers are busy and, in turn, keeping aerospace technology companies busy and innovating. Space is a bright spot in the avionics community, and recent activity should allay concerns over a dwindling U.S. space industry. Kudos and keep up the great work--to 2012 and beyond!

Knowledge is Power

November 7, 2011 3:18 PM by Skyler Frink












Posted by Skyler Frink

If there's one thing GI Joe taught me, it's that knowledge is power.

Intelligence has always been a key factor in military engagements. From the lack of communication between Lee and Stuart in the civil war to the blunder by the British during the Battle of New Orleans, those without knowledge of the battlefield and the capabilities of both sides have been at a severe disadvantage.

Fortunately for the military intelligence has evolved, and getting exact information is increasingly possible with satellites, laser systems, advanced radar, unmanned sensors and unmanned vehicles. The problem facing the modern military is how to share this wealth of information.

The answer is the same as it's always been: Radios.

Modern radios, which behave more like smart phones than the radios of old that only relayed verbal communication, can transmit images, video and data. The utility of these improvements are obvious; verbal reports can be inaccurate and can often be misinterpreted. Rather than having to listen to a verbal report, imagine being able to see the battlefield through video feeds, or have a map that is updated in real-time as data flows in from various sensors.

With all of this information we get the ability to give more detailed commands. Rather than verbal orders, a satellite can locate a target and direct whatever forces are necessary to an area. There are no more questions about where other friendlies are located, because each soldier possesses a GPS that is constantly transmitting data to every other device on the field.

New technologies such as these help dispel the uncertainty created by the fog of war, and go a long way in improving safety for the men and women who are engaged in combat. GI Joe would be proud.

Is orange juice key to preserving last intact German Do-17 light bomber downed in Battle of Britain?

November 4, 2011 10:20 AM by John Keller



Posted by John Keller

Thanks to an Alert Reader in North Carolina, I've learned of an historical research project in England that seeks to raise and preserve what is believed to be the last remaining intact German Dornier Do-17 , a World War II-era light bomber shot down over the English Channel in summer 1940 during the Battle of Britain.

Interestingly, it may turn out to be orange juice -- or some similar derivate rich in citric acid -- that may be key to preserving the aircraft remains, now submerged under the English Channel, from the ravages of salt-water-induced corrosion.

Experts from Imperial College London and the Royal Air Force Museum are joining hands to rescue the downed Do-17 -- better-known as the "Flying Pencil" -- and display the restored Nazi bomber in a proposed gallery planned to pay tribute to those who lost their lives in the Battle of Britain.

The aircraft was found last year in the shallows off the Goodwin Sands in the English Channel between the England and France. Shifting sands uncovered the aircraft, which had been protected for decades by layers of sediment. Its exposure to salt water, however, threatens to destroy the remains. The Battle of Britain, fought in the summer and fall of 1940, refers to attempts by Nazi Germany to establish air superiority over the United Kingdom as a prelude to a German invasion of the British Isles, which never came, thanks to a tenacious defense by the Royal Air Force (RAF).

The recently discovered Do-17 had been manned by a crew of four and loaded with 2,000 pounds of bombs on 26 Aug. 1940 when it was shot down by RAF fighters. Its pilot and another crew member survived, and two were killed when the airplane went down.

For now, researchers are testing an environmentally friendly solution based on citric acid -- found in high concentrations in citrus fruit like oranges and lemons -- to remove surface layers of corrosion and sea deposits on the Do-17 remains, but leave remaining paint and markings on the aircraft intact.

If all goes well, researchers plan to raise the aircraft remains from the English Channel next spring, restore the aircraft, and display it in the planned new Battle of Britain Beacon win at the Royal Air Force Museum's London site.

Editor's note: special thanks goes out to Chris Burke, president of BtB Marketing Communications in Raleigh, N.C., a man of catholic interests, keen insights, and broad expertise. Don't laugh; he knows how to cook a turkey in a garbage can.

Boeing: A giant awakens

November 1, 2011 9:45 PM by Courtney Howard



By Courtney E. Howard

When I began covering the aerospace market and, soon after, relocated to the Pacific Northwest, I was surprised to find that although The Boeing Company was considered an industry giant, it was also perceived by many, especially those in technological circles, to be rather slow-moving.

In little more than the past two months, however, Boeing has made significant strides.

The company announced global leadership changes, including: Marlin Dailey, vice president of sales for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, named president of Boeing Germany, Northern Europe/EU, and Africa; Ray Conner named to the new position of senior vice president of sales and customer support, leading sales, marketing, and commercial aviation services; Stan Deal named to succeed Conner as vice president and general manager, supply chain management and operations; Tim Peters named to lead surveillance and engagement division; Lianne Stein, vice president of Boeing International and president of Boeing Germany, appointed vice president of global corporate citizenship; and Vice President, Community and Education Relations Anne Roosevelt, Boeing Space Exploration VP Brewster Shaw, and CFO James Bell announcing retirement.

In the past two months, Boeing has: introduced the 737 MAX aircraft family, upgraded CV-22 trainers, delivered 787 Dreamliners, first flew the P-8I and CHAMP missile, modernized the F-15E radar, won various avionics modernization and satellite communications contract awards, approved quarterly dividends, modernized destroyers with Gigabit Ethernet networking, helped conduct the first biofuel flight, and much more.

Be sure to stay tuned to Avionics Intelligence to read the latest news, including a new Boeing Commercial Crew program office and partnership with NASA and Space Florida, which is destined to bring new jobs to the Florida facility.

Guns, guns, guns

October 31, 2011 4:21 PM by Skyler Frink


Posted by Skyler Frink

The musket revolutionized the battlefield when it was unveiled. The rifled barrel, which allowed muskets to fire with some degree of accuracy, also altered the battles of the future. After the rifled barrel it was repeating weapons, which could be fired more than once before reloading, that shaped the wars of the day. As warfare carried on, so did the technology behind the weapons that soldiers carried onto the battlefield. Why is it, then, that new guns seem to have stopped being released?

Is it that we have reached the pinnacle of technology with our guns? Have we run out of ways to fire more accurately, with more power or at greater distances?

I don't think so.

The lack of new guns represents a change in how war is fought. As surely as tanks made cavalry obsolete, placing men and women on the front lines is becoming less and less necessary thanks to modern advancements in technology.

No longer do we need to place soldiers directly in harm's way to secure a building. Rather than risk attack, an unmanned vehicle can be tossed into the room to acquire intelligence. Instead of sending soldiers on reconnaissance missions, we can take pictures with satellites or send an unmanned aerial vehicle to survey the area. Rifles are only useful when you have people who will be engaging the enemy directly, and technology is making it so direct contact is no longer a necessity.

On the ever-changing battlefields of today it's only a matter of time before infantry are not required to secure an area or win a battle. As the dangerous jobs are slowly pushed into the realm of unmanned vehicles, we will eventually see the dangers of direct combat be relegated to similar devices.

Business aviation: a boon to corporate 'fat cats' or job creator for the local community?

October 31, 2011 2:15 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Hearing the Obama Administration's rhetoric on business aviation , and you'd think anyone who rides on a private jet is a criminal. Look up Obama corporate jets, and you get a litany from proposed increased taxes on business aviation, to accusations of fat-cat corporate executives who not only don't pay their fair share of taxes and fees, but who also, when using business aviation, somehow are robbing from the less fortunate.

It sounds like outright warfare waged by the Obama Administration on anyone who uses a business jet -- whether he or she needs it or not. There are some corporate leaders for whom private jets make sense, as using this general aviation asset helps keep their companies running and ahead of the competition, but that's beside my point.

I read a story in The Telegraph of Nashua, N.H., on Sunday, which clearly lays out some of the benefits of business aviation to the community at large, not just the so-called "fat cats" who use corporate jets.

The story, headlined "Ceremony will celebrate construction of new runway at Boire Field in Nashua ," discusses construction of a new runway at the general-aviation airport in Nashua, N.H., called Boire Field. This $16 million project, to be paid for primarily by grants from the FAA and New Hampshire Department of Transportation, breaks ground this week on a 6,000-foot level runway, which ultimately will replace an ageing 5,500-foot runway that has one end 10 feet lower than the other.

What caught my eye is the economic influence this project is expected to have. To begin with, the project will create more than 40 full-time jobs, and will be "a boon to most of the 30 businesses that revolve around the airport," reads the story, authored by The Telegraph's Joseph G. Cote.

A 6,000-foot runway isn't long enough to accommodate commercial aircraft, so don't expect to take an airline flight into our out of Boire Field anytime soon. Still, that extra 500 feet of runway should make all the difference for the business jets that use the airport.

The existing 5,500-foot runway isn't long enough for large corporate jets like the Gulfstream V to take off from Nashua with full fuel tanks -- especially on hot, humid days when all aircraft display relatively sluggish aerodynamic performance. That extra 500 feet of runway, however, will enable the biggest private jets operating from Boire Field to take off fully fueled, which increases range and efficiency.

The story points out other community benefits of the general aviation airport improvement project. The new runway also could mean more money for the airport from fuel taxes and for pilots who could take on more passengers per flight, the story reads.

So a project that on the surface might look to benefit only corporate "fat cats" actually will create jobs, enhance the local tax base, and improve efficiency for the local corporations that operate jets at Nashua.

Maybe we ought to think about this next time we hear President Obama or others in his administration attacking business aviation as only benefitting the rich.

No power, no content: the October snowstorm from Hell

October 31, 2011 9:20 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

First things first, I have to apologize for the lack of new content on the Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence websites on Sunday. It's normally my job to post on Sundays, but my efforts on 30 Oct. were frustrated when one of the biggest October snowstorms on record rolled through New England where I live and work.

October. Snowstorm. Not even here in New Hampshire do those two words go together very often. Okay, maybe a dusting here and there ... maybe. What we actually got was 13 inches of heavy, wet snow. Still, it's New England; that shouldn't be such a big deal.

The problem, however, is we still have trees fully foliated with green leaves, and the weekend snowstorm hit us hard. Fall was funny this year. We never got a hard freeze -- until this morning -- and the autumn season has kind of been sputtering forward with only subtle foliage color. The long and short of it, however, is we still have lots of leaves on the trees, and a foot of heavy snow ... well, you can just imagine.

Trees down, power lines shredded, transformers exploded, roads closed ... mayhem, in other words. Where I live in Milford, N.H., the power went out sometime around 1 a.m. Sunday. It's still out, by the way, and is likely to remain so for as long as week. Still, the office power is on here in Nashua, so at least I can get back to work.

No such luck Sunday. Instead of posting content yesterday, as I normally do, I was shoveling snow ... heavy, wet snow ... or did I say that already?

Moving forward, I'll promise have Sunday content on our Websites for you, barring disaster like we had this past weekend. Temperatures this week are supposed to be in the 50s and 60s -- typical fall weather, in other words -- so maybe that 13 inches of snow will be just a memory in a few days ...

... or not. I'm expecting the last of Sunday's snow to melt sometime next April. In the meantime, I have a bit of cheerful news: winter doesn't start officially for about another seven weeks.

Wish us luck.

Is it time for widely recognized industry standards for anti-tamper?

October 28, 2011 9:28 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Aerospace and defense electronics have to do much more than that simply fulfill the capabilities for which they are designed. Nowadays they also have to prove they are safe and reliable, per standards such as the FAA's DO-178B and DO-178C safety-critical software standards.

Growing trends in aerospace and defense electronics, however, mean today's designs have to do more than be safe and reliable. Now they must have provisions to prevent unauthorized tampering or disassembly in an adversary's attempt to learn their secrets.

Anti-tamper technology today is just as important as capability, reliability and safety, so isn't it time for government and industry to put their collective heads together and craft a widely recognized standard for anti-tamper?



Related stories -- It is time to take anti-tamper technology seriously -- Anti-tamper technologies seek to keep critical military systems data in the right hands -- Advanced anti-tamper technologies are goal of Navy Protection of Electronics Systems solicitation.



Certainly there are government standards for adherence to encryption guidelines, such as FIPS 140-2, and the U.S. Department of Defense has begun requiring anti-tamper technology in most mission- and life-critical military systems at risk for enemy tampering.

Anti-tamper technology first became a hot issue a decade ago during the so-called Hainan Island Incident when a U.S. Navy EP-3 Aries four-engine turboprop reconnaissance aircraft was operating about 70 miles away from Hainan Island, China. In response, China scrambled jet fighters to intercept.

One of the Chinese fighters made two close passes beside the slower and less-maneuverable Navy EP-3, and started a third close pass when the fighter collided with the reconnaissance aircraft, causing the fighter to break apart and crash, and the Navy EP-3 to drop into a steep dive before its pilot regained control of the aircraft. The stricken aircraft's pilot had no choice but to land at a Chinese military base on Hainan Island.

The crew of the Navy plane was held in China for 10 days. Their aircraft and equipment were dismantled, stripped, closely examined. The Chinese were able to gain valuable intelligence data from their examination of the aircraft and its equipment. U.S. authorities never want such a thing to happen again, even though advanced U.S. military technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) routinely operate in risky areas where they could be shot down and examined by U.S. adversaries.

So we need anti-tamper technologies, but military procurement authorities approve them one at a time. Perhaps a more unified approach is in order. How about a guideline similar to DO-178B and DO-178C that would spell out anti-tamper standards, as well as procedures to comply with anti-tamper requirements.

Not only might such a standard help keep U.S. military secrets out of the hands of adversaries and make it easier for U.S. defense contractors to provide reliable anti-tamper technology, but such move also might spawn development of a new class of design and development tools designed to help meet anti-tamper standards, and to ensure standards compliance.

It might be worth a discussion.

An exclusive look into the editorial mission of Military & Aerospace Electronics (and a renewal reminder)

October 27, 2011 5:16 PM by Ernesto Burden

By Ernesto Burden, Publisher -

If you read Military & Aerospace Electronics - the print or digital edition of the magazine - you know what a special experience that is, and how distinct an experience it is from reading the website. The rest of the post is going to be an elaboration on the reasons why Military & Aerospace Magazine is so important, and therefore, why you ought not to delay in renewing your (free!) subscription. And while I think what I'm about to say is interesting and worth your consideration, if you're a cut-to-the-chase absolutist, just click here and take a minute to renew your subscription. Trust me, you would have been convinced had you kept reading. Everyone who's interested in a deeper look into the soul of Military & Aerospace Electronics, read on.

Last month, I met with the editors of Military & Aerospace Electronics for a couple of days of deep discussion about where they envisioned taking this magazine in the year to come. We started the meetings with a discussion of the magazine's core values. I'll tell you, no group of editors could have been more passionate about a topic than ours were about this. Here are the guts of what they said:


• Our editorial content serves you, the reader, first
• We will strive to understand you, our readers, well enough so that every piece of content we publish will be useful to you, and we will add value to every piece of content we publish
• In order to achieve these goals, we don't sell editorial space; there's a clear distinction between advertising and editorial content in our magazine (at the end of the day, of course, this fundamental integrity makes our publications more effective vehicles for advertising, as well)

But what does it mean to put the reader first, or to add value to each piece of content we publish? What do these points all mean in terms of real world actions and results? They mean our editors wake up every day thinking about how to:


• Save you time and energy
• Provide data that can help your business run better
• Provide insights that will give you a strategic advantage over competitors
• Provide tools to improve your work and that of your employees

We took those core ideas and used them as lens through which we viewed all of our strategic initiatives in the coming year - including a very important one, the addition of a new editorial position in the Aerospace & Defense Group. In mid-October we hired Skyler Frink, who joined John Keller and Courtney Howard on our editorial team. Skyler is a human face on a big idea - that we're going to keep growing the value of Military & Aerospace Electronics for you - in print, on the web, email newsletters, mobile apps, video blogs, social media and more.

But looking at that cool list of media channels by which we can get you our content brings me back to the initial proposition and the question implicit therein. Why should you hurry to renew your print subscription?

Our website and digital products provide you critical, time-sensitive data anytime and anywhere, and you need that timely information to make quick decisions in an evolving market. But that's a lot of data to synthesize into long-term thinking and strategy.

Our print (and digital edition) magazine provides you that utility: it's the "best of" section of our content, a place to dive deep and think even more deeply. Need to know that you've covered the most essential news of the month, and need that packaged in, as our editor in chief, John Keller says, "a portable wireless product with an intuitive graphic interface"?

That's the print edition, and for all intents and purposes, the digital edition as you can read it on your iPad via standard digital edition download or our custom iPad app.

So there you have it - just as our editors relish saving you time and energy and improving your business with the content they create, I hope I can do the same for you with this reminder. We know you value the content, and we'll help you out by reminding you to renew as needed, it'll save you time if you take a minute to fill out this form on the web. Here's the link: http://www.omeda.com/cgi-win/mae.cgi?login&p=blogrenew

And while you're waiting for your next issue, please feel free to take a minute and drop any of our editors, or me, a note about how we can do even better in our mission to help you do better in yours.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @ aero_ernesto .

NBAA 2011, Social, Mobile and the Year of the iPad

October 20, 2011 4:21 PM by Ernesto Burden

By Ernesto Burden -

Walking the floor at the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) show last week in Las Vegas, it was hard to miss just how much mobile devices have influenced the conversation - from the exhibits and technology showcased to the operations of the show itself. iPads were literally everywhere - used as tools within the displays, on display themselves to show off electronic flight bag (EFB) and cabin control technologies, and as props to demo a plethora of mounting systems and cases.

There was a utility aspect to the mobile-friendly tone of the event as well. The NBAA's own conference and expo application was available for the iPad, iPhone, Android and Blackberry platforms, and if for some reason you couldn't use one of those, there was a mobile Web site that you could browse from the floor. The show app was a pretty good one - beyond the basic map and directory of exhibitors (handy at such a huge event), it included a schedule of sessions, news updates, live Twitter feed capturing the #nbaa2011 hash tag. This last was particularly interesting, because even as great conversations were happening on the show floor, attendees were conducting parallel discussions via mobile social media tools. These conversations were aggregated and displayed streaming on large screens in the registration and concession area between the two halls - a constant reminder of how much sales, marketing and business in every industry are changing under the influence of social media and mobile technology.

But while mobile and social media were prominent, the iPad was the star of the mobile show. I chatted with folks who are using the iPad in all kinds of ways, from the folks at AIS, Inc. who are rolling out an iPad app that will allow a mechanic under a plane to search out and order a part without leaving his position, to iPads as EFBs and even, as in the case of Heads Up Technologies ' Lumin Cabin Management System, as a method of passenger-specific cabin environment control and communication - on their own devices! (For an in-depth roundup of iPad and other mobile apps for flight and cabin tools, check out this story at AIN: http://bit.ly/oe5I1H )

I'll leave the debate over what all this infusion of Steve Jobs' technology vision (yes, I know touch screens and mobile devices weren't all and only him) will mean in terms of aviation and avionics, and simply point out that however you interpret that meaning, it's big and getting bigger. It has changed our expectations of how we interact with technology - whether we are aircraft passengers, pilots, technicians. How many of us have instinctively reached out and touched a display only to realize its one of those old fashioned things that has to be interfaced with via a keyboard and mouse? It's also changing our expectation of connectivity. WiFi on an airplane? De rigueur. We don't want to sit in the cabin and watch the same movie everybody else is watching. We've become an iPod species and have an expectation that the content we consume will be curated, packaged and delivered just to us. Turn off the light above my seat or hit the call button for a flight attendant? You can bet that pretty soon, there's an app for that.

By the way - miss the show? One interesting Tweet that caught my eye as I reviewed the app to write this - @ludozone (Ludo Van Vooren) posted this video on YouTube, the entire show floor, two halls and 900 exhibitors, in 124 seconds: http://youtu.be/kcZknjHz9z4



Ernesto Burden is the publisher of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @ aero_ernesto .

Notable NASA news dominates desktop

October 16, 2011 9:48 PM by Courtney Howard



By C.E. Howard

Color me impressed. (What color is that, anyway?) I am a space nerd, who loves all things space-oriented. I, like many others, recoiled in fear and mild horror last year when it was revealed that some NASA programs would be cancelled and government-funded human space exploration would be put on “the back burner,” to put it mildly. Yet, today, NASA-related news dominates my desktop.

The Obama Administration came under considerable fire for the decision, but I am tremendously pleased with what has transpired since then. The private human spaceflight/commercial spacecraft industry has taken off (pun intended), with help from some of the world’s best and brightest. Forward-thinking entrepreneurs—including Elon Musk, Sir Richard Branson, Robert Bigelow, and others—have invested time, thought, and considerable funds in advancing human space travel in the commercial realm.

NASA officials aren’t resting on their laurels, however. In fact, over the past few months, NASA has been making headlines each week—far more often than it had in the past several years. The organization is increasingly partnering with technology companies in the aerospace industry, as well, announcing contract opportunities and hosting industry events.

Just this month, in fact, NASA personnel have revealed an undersea mission, a next-gen space observatory, student competitions, tweetups (I shudder at the thought of this “word” making it into the dictionary), and the need for expendable launch vehicles, propulsion systems, and much more.

Read the latest NASA news, especially as it relates to requests for proposals (RFPs) and upcoming contract award opportunities, at Avionics-Intelligence.com.

Related articles:

NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations undersea mission launches

Lockheed Martin builds NASA MAVEN spacecraft primary structure

Help Wanted: NASA seeks astronauts




An open letter to GPGPU-based embedded computing providers

October 14, 2011 7:47 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

I've noticed a very strange and perplexing thing going on lately in the embedded computing industry concerning products based on general-purpose graphics processing units (GPGPUs). Everyone wants to be the first ... well, no matter what it is -- first for this, first to provide that, first, first, first.

I know of at least three companies out there involved in nasty sniping matches over who was the first to do some sort or other with the GPGPU, and it's getting old, quite frankly.

Now the GPGPU is great technology; no argument there. It's a powerful parallel processing engine broadly applicable to digital signal processing for radar, sonar, electro-optical sensor processing and a broad range of other applications central to the aerospace and defense industry.

But I have to ask an obvious question: who cares who's first? First this, first that, biggest, best, fastest, prettiest, whatever. I care about capability and applicability to challenges that aerospace and defense systems designers have, not who's the first at anything in this market, and I'll wager your embedded computing customers feel the same way.

Let's have a competitive discussion about the capabilities of GPGPU-based devices, and how these powerful devices can help military and aerospace electronics systems designers solve their most difficult problems.

Let's restrain ourselves over who's first, and leave that argument for the bar after work.

Imagine that: COTS component lifecycle support that sees integrators through design and production

October 11, 2011 5:13 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Rapid obsolescence and a perceived lack of support continue to give commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and subsystems a black eye, and over time have led to a lack of faith in COTS products among prime aerospace and defense contractors.

And who could blame the contractors for their skeptical attitude toward COTS? No wonder many of them still want to design and manufacture their own components rather than patronizing COTS suppliers. The primes have to develop and maintain military systems over long lifecycles sometimes lasting decades, while component suppliers typically are concerned with moving on the next generation of technology.

Put these two interests together, and it can be a recipe for disaster. A major airborne radar program, for example, was brought to a screeching halt when the supplier of the system's embedded computers obsoleted those parts before the system was even deployed.

Think about it. A major systems integrator goes through the long and laborious process of designing, testing, and qualifying an airborne radar system. This can take years, as this one did. At long last, when the system was ready for production, and the systems integrator was ready to start buying those embedded computers in bulk, the manufacturer had stopped making them. How many component manufacturers, after all, are going to keep making a specific part for years or even decades. Technology moves much faster than that.

Well, put yourself in the shoes of the systems integrator. It's not always their fault that military systems development takes so long. Designing a complex military system like an airborne radar is complex. Qualification takes time, too, to ensure the system works correctly in all conditions. Is it too much to ask that component suppliers involved on the program support the systems integrator for the duration of the program?

Well, Aitech Defense Systems in Chatsworth, Calif., put themselves in the shoes of their customers and came up with a solution called COTS Lifecycle+ that is such a no-brainer that it's a wonder this didn't gain widespread acceptance long ago.

It's a simple as this: Aitech will guarantee support for its embedded computing products for 12 years from product introduction. In most cases, that's ample time for systems integrators using Aitech products to get their platforms designed, qualified, and produced.

A simple enough solution, and I think we're going to see a lot more of this in the future.

New to NBAA

October 11, 2011 12:06 AM by Courtney Howard



Posted by Courtney E. Howard

The 64^th annual National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) meeting and convention opened today, 10 Oct. 2011, with an inspiring, thought-provoking General Session. NBAA’s president and CEO, Ed Bolen, revealed that 25,000 professionals are in attendance at this year’s event—an increase over last year’s numbers, before cutting the ribbon on the expansive exhibit floor.

Business aviation has experienced what many on the show floor have characterized as a “roller coaster ride”—with extreme highs and lows. In just a few months, however, the market seems to have stabilized; the mood is high and both attendees and exhibitors are optimistic about the short and long term. Yet, as speakers at the NBAA General Session indicated, it’s not all smooth sailing.

“We are in a fight for our industry,” Bolen described, referring to business aviation coming under fire. “The industry is being bullied.”

Politicians are scrutinizing, and looking to impose a tax on, general aviation. Reportedly, politicians began subjecting the general aviation industry to scrutiny, accompanied by accusations of corporate greed and excess, as a kneejerk reaction to disgust over CEOs of “the big three” automakers flying on private jets to Washington to plea for bailout money back in 2008.

“General aviation is a good industry, and business aviation is a proud part of that,” Bolen continued. He called for the industry to push back against negative characterizations, as well as to come together, unite, and make its voice heard.

Avionics Intelligence wants to hear your voice. How do you feel about the proposed tax on, and the recent personification, general aviation?

Aerospace and defense electronics industry consolidation proceeding at a rapid pace

October 9, 2011 8:47 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Don't look now, but we're in the throes of a fairly substantial business consolidation in the aerospace and defense electronics industry. I know company executives have been nervous for a while now, what with threatened cuts in the U.S. Department of Defense budget, leaving few with any clear idea of where the cuts will come.

It's a fair bet that big new military programs will be hit the hardest from the defense cuts we know are coming. Less clear is how defense cuts will influence electronic component and subsystem suppliers, who as we speak are re-inventing themselves as key enablers for electronic systems upgrades that will keep existing platforms in the field for as long as possible to save money.

Another result of gathering defense cuts, as well as the continued sluggish economy, is a defense electronics industry consolidation. I don't have scientific evidence for this, but I know what I've been seeing for about the last three months in announced company mergers and acquisitions.

At Military & Aerospace Electronics we try to cover the most substantial company mergers and acquisitions that are relevant to our industry. I am not, however, claiming that we cover ALL relevant mergers and acquisitions, but we do our best.

Having said that, I counted nine mergers and acquisitions in September, four mergers and acquisitions in August, and eight more in July. That's 21 mergers and acquisitions in the last quarter, and that's also only counting what we have covered at Military & Aerospace Electronics. The actual number is mostly like higher.

When's the last time anyone in our industry has seen industry consolidation happening at this pace? I can't remember when, myself. I just know it's going on, and I see few factors that cold slow the process down. The real question is what will our industry look like when mergers and acquisitions finally slow down.

I wish I knew, because it's starting to look scary out there.

Drones don't kill people, people kill people

October 6, 2011 4:14 PM by Ernesto Burden

By Ernesto Burden, Publisher


A headline in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye Saturday morning: “Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure.” Something about the ambiguity of this language bothered me – in English, do we more often cite the weapon that kills someone, or the consciousness that directs the weapon? In the case of a hostage standoff in which police are forced to shoot the hostage taker, do we say, “bullet kills captor,” or “gun kills captor,” or do we say, “police shoot hostage taker?” Unless the gun was acting autonomously (impossible), or maybe fell out of a holster and went off accidentally, I’d say, “police shoot hostage taker,” is a better reflection of reality.

The "Drone Kills" headline referred to a CIA counterterrorism program attack on U.S.-born Al Qaeda recruiter, Anwar al-Awlaki. The CIA used a drone to kill al-Awlaki, and sure, in some sense, he was "killed by drone" in the same sense that someone might undergo "death by hanging." But to lead a story by saying a man had just been killed by a rope would paint a rather surreal picture.

I'm not just asking this question based on a single the WSJ headline. As the day progressed and other mentions of this incident popped up, on the radio, television, the Web, so many of them included this "Drone Kills..." construction that one has to conclude it is the accepted media term. But does it obfuscate both the reality of the situation, the necessary and practical questions that arise as the line between military and intelligence operations blurs in the era of unmanned vehicles?

And what about the technology behind it? Is there a suggestion in that persistently constructed "drone kills" headline that the drone is autonomous? It's not, but it's not hard to imagine – at least technically – many aspects of warfare carried on with humans out of the loop entirely. Science fiction writers have done a bang-up job imagining frightening visions of that future. Perhaps we in the media should be clearer and more accurate in our language, if not for the sake of preventing the public from developing a blind spot to an important ethical arena in warfighting, then at least for the sake of the language itself.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @ aero_ernesto.

Help Wanted: NASA seeks astronauts

October 4, 2011 4:53 PM by Courtney Howard



By Courtney E. Howard




NASA needs astronauts. No, really. Next month, NASA officials will start accepting applications for the next class of astronaut candidates. The Astronaut Candidate Class of 2013 will support not only long-duration missions to the International Space Station (ISS), but also future deep-space exploration.









Let me “say” that again: The Astronaut Candidate Class of 2013. How cool would it be to add that to your resume and list of accomplishments? Game over—I’d be one satisfied customer. After you literally shoot for the moon, what else is there? Eh, I’m sure I’d find something… but it’s all for naught; I’m out of the running.




This latest NASA news is all the more reason for students to pursue an education and occupation in STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.




Applicants for the newest Astronaut Candidate Class must have a bachelor's degree in engineering, science, or math and three years of relevant professional experience to be considered. As can be expected, however, successful applicants typically have significant qualifications in engineering/science or extensive experience flying high-performance jet-aircraft.




"For scientists, engineers, and other professionals who have always dreamed of experiencing spaceflight, this is an exciting time to join the astronaut corps," says Janet Kavandi, director of flight crew operations at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. "This next class will support missions to the station and will arrive via transportation systems now in development. They also will have the opportunity to participate in NASA's continuing exploration programs that will include missions beyond low Earth orbit."




After applicant interviews and evaluations, NASA expects to announce the final selections in 2013, and training to begin that August. For more information, visit http://astronauts.nasa.gov/ or call the Astronaut Selection Office at 281-483-5907.




Also, be sure to learn all the latest space news, including the latest and greatest satellite electronics and spacecraft avionics advancements and applications, at Avionics-Intelligence.com. It's the place to learn what's happening in space!




It's time for clear explanations of why software is important in aerospace and defense systems

October 2, 2011 6:23 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

It's difficult to overestimate the importance of aerospace and defense software in ever-more-sophisticated military electronics. Software is perhaps the most crucial enabling technology, as well as the riskiest vulnerability in military weapons, communications, navigation and guidance, and most other applications that give U.S. warfighters a crucial technological edge over their adversaries.

Nevertheless, it never fails to astonish me the difficulty that software companies have in explaining how their tools, operating systems, integrated development environments, services, and other expertise represent the enabling technologies they truly are.

When I talk to software companies, as I did this past week at the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston, I always want to hear in a clear, concise way, what their software engineers bring to the table for the aerospace and defense systems designer and the military platform integrator.

More often than not, however, I get a tortured and long-winded explanation of software capabilities, new or upgraded tools, and why some such software widget is better than the one offered from competitors. I rarely get a straight answer to my question of how this particular piece of software can benefit the guy designing a communications system, electronic warfare suite, radar or sonar system, or avionics flight control.

For this, however, I can't always blame the folks at the software companies. Explaining why software is important is hard. You can't pick up a piece of software, hold it in your hands, turn it over, and feel its heft like you can with hardware.

Software, by nature, is an abstract thing, and explaining its importance to people like me who aren't software engineers is a daunting task. Still, it shouldn't feel like you have to be in the club to get it.

I'm sure software companies do a great job of explaining themselves to other software people. On many levels, I think it takes a deep knowledge and appreciation of the challenges of developing software that works, doesn't hog processor and memory resources, can be maintained and upgraded easily, and can't be hacked by the bad guys to understand the latest software products.

Still, I'm always frustrated when I come away from a software show, as the Embedded Systems Conference has become, because I have a nagging feeling that I've missed something. There just has to be some understandable explanation between "my software makes electronics work better," and the gory details of what the software actually does.

That's what I'm after, and it's a big challenge to get anywhere close, it seems.

Related stories

-- Military use of consumer computing like iPads and Android software raise concerns for safety and security ;

-- Safety- and security-critical avionics software ; and

-- Software middleware providers acknowledge the need for security and safety .

One phone to rule them all - robust data isolation for two personas on a single mobile device

September 28, 2011 8:10 PM by Ernesto Burden

By Ernesto Burden

We have entered an age where two trends are running smack into each other in increasingly painful ways - the blending of personal and professional lives on our devices, and an era of highly public hacking. In the age of WikiLeaks, an age when government leaders' (and high profile political candidates') private communications and official correspondences have been hacked and exposed on front pages of Web sites, data security on mobile devices is increasingly crucial. At the same time, we've come to expect our mobile devices to be all things, professional and personal.

Do you carry more than one mobile device - phones, tablets, etc.? When we travel for business, many of us do. This may be partly for convenience, partly for security. And while corporate data security is deeply important - what about the security of sensitive government and military data? That's life and death. Do commanders want troops in the field checking Facebook or sending personal email on the same mobile devices they are using for sensitive operations. Not likely. So to insure data isolation between the persona persona and the IT-managed persona, you end up with two phones, two tablets, two laptops, etc.

Imagine that hardware bloat expanded across, say, a whole army. At the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston on Tuesday I chatted with Brad Jackson, a senior field applications engineer at Green Hills Software , about their Integrity Multivisor platform, for which they've just rolled out updates that add support for "the latest versions of Android and other mobile operating systems." Jackson describes the system as, "software separation as secure as hardware separation."

In the example we discussed, one might install two instances of the Android operating system on top of Green Hills' INTEGRITY Multivisor mobile hypervisor, which installs directly to the hardware. One of the Android installs is for the "sensitive network" with key management, crypto and authentication applications, the other is for the "quality-of-life" network, where you might email your kids and check Twitter - "multimedia, social and Internet apps."

Anyone whose work takes him away from home and family, even for short stretches of time like days or weeks, knows how important it is to be able to maintain that connection to home. This must be infinitely more true for people who must be away for months or even years. Mobile devices and the social tools they enable are powerful ways to stay connected. It's not just a convenience; but a vital way to stay connected. "Warfighters expect to be able to email their loved ones back home," Jackson told me. Business, government and military leaders seem to be conceding to this expectation.

For warfighters, eliminating the need for multiple devices in the field for secure and non-secure data has size, weight and power (SWaP) implications, as well as cost benefits.

For business travelers, it may someday mean fewer devices and cables in the laptop bag and a faster trip through airport security. And for politicians, maybe it means one less embarrassing picture, tweet or email message offered up for scandal, scorn and joke fodder for late night talk show hosts.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @ aero_ernesto.

When real life user interfaces begin to emulate video games

September 21, 2011 3:48 PM by Ernesto Burden

Posted by Ernesto Burden.

It used to be that video game creators tried to emulate real life experiences. Remember Microsoft's Flight Simulator? It was about as complicated to fly those virtual planes as it is to fly real planes (I spent more time crashing my airliners than landing them as a kid), and that was the goal. But what happens when that paradigm gets flipped on its head - when the real life user interfaces model themselves on rapidly evolving video game standards? I had a first hand taste of this at a recent defense electronics shows I attended - and even got to take the joystick and learn just how easy robot-wranglin' can be at the surreal VR dawn of the 21st century.

If you've played a newer first-person-shooter style video game, you know how powerful the graphics engines are and how immersive the experience is. In a lineage descending from classics such as Doom on through the the most recent Call of Duty or Halo releases, first-person-shooter games have evolved into marvels of 3D graphics rendering, allowing for ultra smooth movement through incredibly detailed environments that draw the player in so well that experiences such as a fall or wild charge down a winding corridor generate actual physical sensations. At the touch a button on the computer keyboard or controller device, you can toggle visual perspectives and control not only forward, backward, left and right movement, but also left and right "strafing" movements, crouching, leaping and in some cases flying or swimming with perfect altitude and depth control.

So what does this embarrassment of riches in entertainment technology mean in aerospace and defense? Well for one thing, it means that the commercial game environment has had generations to explore not only virtual environments, but astoundingly intuitive user interface for control for navigating those environments.

Which brings me to the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) show in Washington, DC, our Military & Aerospace Electronics Team attended last month, and back to Flight Simulator. I found as a kid - not being a pilot or someone inclined wanted to read a full length instruction manual just to play a game - the planes in Flight Simulator to be difficult to fly. At AUVSI, M&AE chief editor John Keller and I watched a small drone helicopter - the Hornet Micro UAS - demonstration. After the demonstration we visited with the helicopter's maker Adaptive Flight and we got to see how the vehicle was flown. Hint - you didn't need four hands and six feet to operate all the pedals and levers and sticks and whatnot. You used one joystick and a keyboard. The 12-year-old version of you could drop in from the past and fly this thing with about one minute of instruction, no manual required. You'd know exactly how to do it, because it worked just like a video game. In fact, that's pretty much what the UAV's maker says in the product literature: "Advanced flight control technology makes flying the Hornet as easy as navigating a video game with take-offs and landings at the push of a button."


A little bit later that day I was chatting with Andrew Borene at the Recon Robotics booth. Recon makes a tiny little robot called the Recon Scout IR. It's basically a cylinder about the size of a 2.5 lb dumbbell with rubbery wheels on either end and a couple of flexible antennas sticking out. The idea is you can lob this little guy up onto the roof of a building, say, and then drive it around reconnoitering. Andrew gave me one of the robots and let me throw it onto the roof of the booth, which was designed to look like a desert outpost. He then handed me the controller - once again a single joystick was all you needed to drive. The vehicle was designed to self-right and then get on with business, shooting video automatically and transmitting it back to a screen in the controller. Drive into a dark room on the roof? The camera automatically switches to an IR view. I drove a robot about this size in a video game a long time - James Bond Golden Eye - and I say with absolute conviction that the video game version was actually a bit harder to operate. That's how good these things are getting.

So while soldiers are using "serious" games for training and simulation from the cockpit to the battlefield (read this article by M&AE's Courtney Howard for a great overview of this), it's also clear that elements of these games are blurring the line between reality and virtual reality in the other direction as well. And it's fascinating to wonder what impact having grown up in the deeply immersive, super-detailed environments of contemporary video games will have on the engineers and developers of the future in terms of the direction from which they instinctively approach user interface challenges.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of PennWell's Aerospace and Defense Media Group, which include Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence, and Avionics Europe. Email him at ernestob@pennwel.com.


Beer and Nazi politics: retracing some of history's paths

September 16, 2011 12:03 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

MUNICH Germany, 16 Sept. 2011. I've been in Europe on business this week, and had a chance to have dinner in the same historic beer hall in Munich Germany, where in February 1920 Adolf Hitler himself outlined a 25-point program of ideas that were to be the basis of what would become the Nazi party of Germany ...

... yes, THAT Nazi party, the one responsible for starting World War II when it sent German army troops across the border of Poland in September 1939 to conquer its first, but not last, European country on its way to dominating the continent in the mid-20th century.

But in 1920, the German Nazi party was just an idea, which took root in the beer halls of Munich. The place I visited this past Wednesday evening is the famous Hofbräuhaus, a gigantic place built in 1598 where generations have strained their elbows hoisting liter-sized beer mugs and enjoyed the sounds of Bavarian ooompah bands ... and at one time a charismatic speaker named Adolf Hitler.

The Munich beer halls of the day, like the Hofbräuhaus, which still survives, were the size of huge gymnasiums where thousands of people could gather and listen to political speeches. Hitler's 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus was only the first of many Nazi events that led to the failed Beer Hall Putsch, an attempted takeover of the German government by the Nazis in 1923.

German authorities foiled this attempt, and Hitler went to prison for eight months as a result. He used his prison time to write a book called Mein Kampf, and re-emerged in German politics soon after his release.

I think we know the rest of the story.

Sitting in the huge room on the second floor of the Hofbräuhaus where Hitler gave that important 1920 speech, I couldn't concentrate on the Bavarian dancers, brass band, and town banners adorning the hall. I kept thinking about red flags with black swastikas, and a room full of people giving the Nazi salute, and a frenzied speaker with a funny little mustache gesticulating up on the platform.

I kept thinking to myself, 'THIS is the room.' Well, as it turns out, it wasn't EXACTLY the room. Allied bombing raids during the Second World War destroyed much of Munich, including the second floor of the Hofbräuhaus. The historic beer hall was rebuilt after the war, along with many other damaged historic buildings. The plaque on the wall commemorating Hitler's speech was not replaced during the beer hall's refurbishment.

It's a curse being an armchair historian sometimes. I should have enjoyed the Hofbräuhaus dancers more than I did.

At sea in an ocean of military equipment, vehicles and components

September 13, 2011 10:33 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

LONDON, 13 Sept. 2011. I'm attending the monster Defence Systems & Equipment International (DSEi) military trade show today in London, and I'm reminded of why I never fail to leave any one of the Smithsonian museums without a vague feeling of being stuffed and starved at the same time.

The Smithsonian has too much of everything, and not enough of anything. So does the DSEi show.

Tanks, armored vehicles, machine guns, chemical protection suits, unmanned aerial vehicles, combat radios, electronic connectors, boots, body armor, navigation systems, personal cooling systems, missiles, non-lethal hand grenades (I couldn't be making this up), rubber bullets, helicopters, a non-flying F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ... the list goes on and on.

Confused yet? Imagine how I feel. At least you're probably not sore from your hips to your big toes. When I say DSEi is big, I mean really big -- two-exhibit-halls-twice-as-wide-as-a-football-field-and-probably-four-times-as-long big.

I hadn't been getting my walks in of late. Between the London-rush-hour trip over here on the Underground -- lovingly called the Tube -- and winding my away around football fields of tanks, armored vehicles, machine guns ... well, you get the idea ..., and I've gotten my walks in for weeks.

If I force myself to get past the sheer, brute incongruity of it all, there are some pretty interesting things here. Meggitt plc in Christchurch, England, for example, is getting ready to introduce a soldier's personal, body-worn air conditioner that's about the size of a soft drink can. I can only imagine how they'll do the duct work to cool a warfighter from head to toe.

The unmanned aerial vehicles on display, as usual, are head-turners. And as is becoming fashionable at big defense shows these days, DSEi has the obligatory unmanned vehicle demonstration area, complete with protective netting to keep the flying things separate from show attendees.

Oh, and I forgot to mention my favorite exhibit at the show so far.

The armored cement mixer -- no, really. I suppose you never know when you'll need to build a concrete apron fast on some battlefield while the shooting is still going on ... or a basketball court, or a built-in barbecue and patio. At least that way we'll have good use for all that body armor and bolt-less helmets.

You'll have to excuse me now; I'm not finished walking the floors at DSEi. I need to go find the Kevlar basketballs and titanium barbecue spatulas.

Some of the unsung events of 9/11 that didn't make it onto the front page

September 11, 2011 8:27 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

The flaming twin towers of the World Trade Center against a crystal-blue September sky a decade ago today is seared into memory for most of us, but there are a few things about 9/11 that many of us know little about. How about tens of thousands of U.S.-bound airline passengers stranded in Canada after the FAA shut down U.S. airspace?

How about a couple of fighter pilots who took off from Andrews Air Force Base near Washington in unarmed F-16 jet fighters just after the first attacks, with intent to ram United Airlines Flight 93 -- a hijacked passenger jetliner heading for the nation's capital?

Well, I didn't know about all that stuff, either, until just a few days ago.

The morning of 11 Sept. 2001, Lt. Heather "Lucky" Penney of 121st Fighter Squadron in the D.C. Air National Guard and Col. Marc Sasseville were at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., after completing some flight training in Nevada. After hearing of terrorist planes crashing into the twin towers and the Pentagon, the two pilots sprinted to their aircraft.

The F-16s didn't have bullets or missiles, and there was no time to arm them. Hijacked aircraft, including United 93, were reported to be heading toward Washington, and they had to prevent them from hitting the Capitol, the White House, or any other civilian targets. Without weapons they had only one thing to do: crash their fighter jets kamikaze-style into the approaching United 93 to prevent it from reaching Washington.

Sasseville would go for the hijacked Boeing 757's cockpit, and Penney would go for the tail. As it turns out, they didn't have to make such an attack, which almost certainly would have cost them their lives. The passengers of United 93 did that when they tried taking the aircraft back from the terrorists, and the jetliner went down near Shanksville, Pa.

Now think about all the aircraft heading to the U.S. from Europe and Asia the morning of the September 11 attacks. An hour after the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center, the FAA closed U.S. airspace.

At the time 255 passenger aircraft were heading towards the U.S. and didn't have the option of turning back. So what did they do?

They flew to Canada, and not to major airports in Ottawa, Toronto, or Montreal, That was considered to be too risky. Instead, they flew to airports in Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, from where passengers had to wait until they could make other travel arrangements.

The airport in Gander, Newfoundland, for example, took in 39 widebody jetliners and 6,600 passengers. Now consider that the town of Gander has fewer than 10,000 residents. Taking care of all those passengers was a monumental task.

Yet it was just one of the monumental tasks that Americans, Canadians, and many others had to do that day 10 years ago. There were little things and big things that people did. All of them are worth remembering today.

The economy and what it means for the defense industry

September 9, 2011 11:36 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

President Obama's speech Thursday night, it looks to me, means not much is going to change. What worries me is the president apparently believes that government directly is capable of creating jobs. Now I know all presidents talk about government's creating jobs, but I don't think any president really believed it -- until now.

The private sector is not going to shift out of neutral, and will not get on with the business of job and wealth creation, until business leaders have some sense of the tax rates they will face in the long term, as well as the burdens from government they must bear, such as minimum wages, health insurance costs, and other factors. This holds true for the defense industry, as well as for other private business.

We have an offer from Obama of only temporary tax reductions, and a looming federal health care plan that could begin placing unprecedented costs on businesses and individuals starting in 2014. In sum, no one in private business is sure what they'll face over the next few years, and as long as that uncertainty remains, don't expect private business to do much hiring or investing -- even in the defense industry.

On a simplistic level, this might not make much sense. After all, doesn't the defense industry's fortunes rise and fall exclusively on levels of federal spending? While this may be true to a great extent, the defense industry also relies on a healthy private-sector economy, which today we don't have.

Think of the many layers of the defense industry supply chain. What percentage of suppliers to the U.S. military do you think receive checks directly from the government? I'll wager it's less than half -- and perhaps far less still. Everyone else is making money from the primes and subcontractors. If those primes and subcontractors are worried about the economy, they won't spend for internal research and development, and won't be in the mood to take the kinds of risks necessary for technological innovation.

Instead, they'll spend only as much money on goods and services as they have to, and nothing more. This kind of stagnation will remain, as long as the defense industry, like everyone else, is paralyzed with uncertainty.

Now couple that with the dread building in the defense industry over prospects of deep cuts in the Pentagon's budget. There's worry about business prospects in general, and about cuts in the defense budget in particular.

These aspects don't add up to a very pretty picture.

Let Skylab be a reminder of what happens to a neglected space station

August 31, 2011 3:59 PM by John Keller



Posted by John Keller



Everyone remember Skylab ? You know, that orbiting laboratory that NASA operated as America's first space station from 1973 until, neglected, its orbit decayed in 1979 and Skylab burned up in the Earth's atmosphere before its remains crashed in the Southern Hemisphere -- some of it on Australia.



Such a waste.



Yes I know, there were REASONS that Skylab met such an ignominious end, most of them involving money, or the lack thereof. Skylab was a victim of NASA's success in the Apollo program that landed men on the moon for the first time. Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, 1969, Apollo 11 ? Of course you remember all that.



What evolved from that summer day in 1969 when Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon in the lunar module, within several years, was a collective yawn from the public after the first few moon missions. Everyone wondered what was next. Well what was next was the Skylab space station, but after the first moon landing even Skylab wasn't all that exciting anymore.



So for Skylab, funding ran short, and the orbiting lab was mothballed. The plan was for the yet-to-be-developed U.S. space shuttle to refurbish Skylab and reinvigorate that space station program, which fallen into disuse.



The problem with that plan was the space shuttle didn't get developed in time to save Skylab. NASA couldn't boost it to a higher orbit, and the Earth's gravity eventually sucked the orbiting lab to its doom.



Now are you wondering why I brought this up? Well, indications are that we're ready to go through Skylab Part II. The International Space Station , the multi-nation legacy of Skylab and an early Russian space station called Mir, is ready to be abandoned. Space experts are starting to fret that chances are increasing of losing the newest Space Station .



The latest chapter began with the crash of a Russian rocket that was supposed to resupply the Space Station recently due to malfunction, leaving the International Space Station short of food, water, fuel, and other essentials.



The Space Station's current crew most likely will have to leave it before another resupply mission can be attempted. Now where do we see this going? Is it sounding familiar?



I'm wondering if, due to federal budget cuts here and around the world, the International Space Station could share the same fate as Skylab. What a coincidence that would be; can't you see the scenario unfolding? Lack of money, lack of interest, lack of a way even to get to the orbiting lab.



I wish I didn't see it happening like this, but I do. Here's another delicious twist on dwindling government money. On 20 July 1969 I was a 10-year-old kid on vacation at McGrath State Beach , a campground in California, listening on a transistor radio as Armstrong and Aldrin maneuvered the Apollo 11 lunar module to the lunar surface.



This campground where I listened to history in the making is scheduled to close permanently this fall. The reason: not enough money to operate it and fix a crucial sewer line.

Launch of 737 MAX restores competitive balance between Boeing and Airbus for narrow-body jetliner market

August 31, 2011 1:57 PM by John Keller



Posted by John Keller



So Boeing's finally done it; they've introduced a fuel-efficient narrow-body jetliner -- the 737 MAX -- in response to the Airbus launch last December of the A320neo family of single-aisle medium-range passenger jets. It had been anticipated for a while, and was seen as an imperative for Boeing to come up with an alternative to the Airbus A320neo, and fast.



Airbus introduced the A320neo -- short for new engine option -- less than a year ago, and at the Paris Air Show last June absolutely wiped the floor with Boeing in the perpetual two-company struggle for a dominant share of the global airliner market.



Normally the big international air shows like Paris and Farnborough see roughly equal aircraft sales among Boeing and Airbus, but this past June it was different. Airbus took orders at Paris for 730 aircraft worth a total of $72.2 billion -- 667 of those orders for the A320neo. Boeing, by contrast, sold 142 commercial aircraft at Paris.



One of the big reasons for the lopsided sales performance at Paris was the lack of a Boeing offering to counter the A320neo, which at the time was promising to be the most fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly single-aisle medium-range aircraft available in the world. by the end of the show, orders for the A320neo family had reached 1,029, making it the best selling airliner in the history of commercial aviation, Airbus officials claimed.



The sales showing at Paris was so lopsided, that experts believe Boeing had to come up with an alternative, or continue losing sales to Airbus. That alternative was announced on Tuesday, but with strikingly few details about the 737 MAX. We know it will be a variant of the venerable Boeing 737, with three different versions, but no details on lengths or seating configurations released, as of yet.



The twin-engine 737 MAX will have will have LEAP-1B engines from CFM International S.A. that will be optimized for the new Boeing aircraft. The A320neo, by contrast, will offer a choice of the CFM International LEAP-X or the Pratt & Whitney PW1100G PurePower engines. The A320neo is scheduled to enter service in 2015 or 2016, while the 737 MAX most likely won't enter service until 2017.



Boeing's announcement Tuesday of the new 737 MAX claimed orders for the new jet, but gave no details on which airlines might be most interested in the new aircraft. At least one tantalizing possibility for the future 737 MAX might be Southwest Airlines, which operates versions of the Boeing 737 exclusively, and by 2017 might be ready to replenish its hard-working fleet.



We know something more about the A320neo than we do about the 737 MAX. The A320neo will consists of variants of the Airbus A320, A321, and A319, seating from 124 and 220 passengers in a variety of seating configurations. No details yet about seating configurations for the 737 MAX. We'll learn more as time goes on.



On hindsight, it seems Boeing had little choice in offering up its 737 model for upgrades to the 737 MAX configuration, given time constraints and intense pressure from Airbus. Still, I had been hoping for something a little different, and perhaps much bolder.



Boeing has been heavily touting its latest all-new passenger aircraft design, the 787 Dreamliner, for years. The composite-design, fuel-efficient 787 is a long-range widebody aircraft designed to compete on international routes. For an answer to the A320neo, I had hoped for a narrow-body version of the 787, with composite construction and those large passenger windows that Boeing makes so much of on the 787.



We may see a miniature single-aisle version of the 787 yet, but probably not for a while, if ever. As it is, however, we've see a restoration of the competitive balance between Boeing and Airbus for the future single-aisle jetliner market.

More meaningless posturing over "automatic" cuts in the defense budget

August 4, 2011 5:25 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

I don't know whether to be amused or frustrated over political rhetoric coming out of Washington about these so-called "automatic" cuts in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) budget over the next decade if Congress doesn't either reduce projected spending or raise taxes.

First, talking about "required" defense budget cuts right now anywhere beyond federal fiscal year 2013 is just silly, empty, political fluff. I get tired of beating this dead horse, but I'll say it again: Congress does whatever it wants to do on a year-by-year basis. There are NO "required" cuts in the future because every Congress acts on its own , regardless of promises made in the past.

Nothing's binding; it's all just a bunch of talk. Rather shocking behavior to see from Washington, don't you think?

Look at the stories making the rounds over the past few days containing dire predictions of hurting our national defense due to potential "automatic cuts totaling an additional half a trillion dollars" ... "if Congress fails to enact additional deficit reduction legislation by the end of the year." You can read rhetoric like that in a story today in the Los Angeles Times entitled "Pentagon says projected spending cuts could undermine security ."

Take a close look at these stories. They all contain caveats like "unless Congress decided to overturn the cuts." IF Congress were to overturn the cuts? They actually mean WHEN Congress overturns the cuts, as lawmakers, in their wisdom and calculation, undoubtedly will do.

They always do.

Every Congress acts on its own every federal fiscal year. They're bound by nothing in the past. They start every year out with a clean slate. Overturning commitments made in the past is just part of the routine, and can be predicted like the sun rising in the east.

So, with this in mind, every dire prediction you read about "automatic" defense cuts over the next 10 years is all just political theater performed to exert pressure for the perceived need to do something now. In this case the pressure being applied is about raising taxes, and the rhetoric is intended to hold the DOD budget hostage to make that happen.

The budget will be cut drastically in the future unless Congress enacts new taxes, we hear from Washington. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta trotted out a statement this week warning these deep cuts in the defense budget would hurt national security, and that the American people should accept higher taxes, rather than deep cuts in the defense budget.

It's right off the Obama Administration script. Panetta delivered his lines like the Democrat party pro he is. I remember years ago interviewing Panetta in his Capitol Hill office when he was a congressman representing Monterey, Calif. He was a skilled, experienced political infighter then, and he's a skilled, experienced political infighter today. Same party, same script, different job.

So, if you find yourself starting to get worked up over future military budget cuts based on what you're hearing out of Washington, just take a breath and remind yourself that this is only a movie.

Because that's all it is.

Smoke, mirrors, and other hocus-pocus take center stage at U.S. deficit-reduction talks

July 19, 2011 4:03 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

You gotta love some of the proposals tossed onto the table during the continuing deficit-reduction talks among members the U.S. Congress and the administration of President Barack Obama.

The latest proposal from the Senate's so-called "Gang of Six" senators from both parties seeks to make "$3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years" and "contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues."

First, predicting how Congress will spend money a decade in the future is like predicting the weather in 2086. Of the Democrat and Republican lawmakers who are trying to convince us now how they'll spend money in 10 years, well, many of them won't even be around then, so what do they care about commitments they make today?

If Congress were to approve such a scheme, they'll be able to hear the giggles in Washington from Kansas City. Some of those senators and representatives in 10 years will be out of office, some will be dead, a few might still be in Congress, but no one will remember by then. Long story short, 10-year spending plans in Congress are pure fantasy cooked up to placate important constituencies, and only for the time being.

If Congress is going to make meaningful cuts in federal spending, they have to do it now, this year, before the 2012 elections. Anything other than that is something akin to the guy staggering home with lipstick on his collar at 2 a.m., smelling of whiskey, and telling his wife that he was at a midnight mass.

You can't trust politicians to do two things: tell the truth, and not spend taxpayer money; it's just not in their makeup. History bears this out.

Second, I just love this government rhetoric about "new revenues." The word revenue means different things to different people. In the private sector, revenue means income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. More to the point, in private business revenue is earned. Not so in government.

In government, revenue refers to tax money confiscated from citizens. It's not earned, it's simply taken -- with or without the taxpayer's consent. So whenever you hear anyone in government talking about "new revenues," just substitute "tax hikes," and see how that proposal plays with you.

That's just the point, isn't it? The government is just playing with us. No wonder so many American citizens so fed up.

Must an entire sector of U.S. civil aviation be demonized in the interests of Obama re-election campaign?

June 30, 2011 11:51 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

President Barack Obama, in a speech at the White House Wednesday , saw fit to paint an important sector of U.S. civil aviation -- business aviation -- as an icon of corporate greed worthy of contempt by ordinary working Americans who have been hit hard by the long economic recession.

Business aviation, which consists of private jets , crop dusters , and corporate aircraft of many different kinds, provides jobs to factory workers at places like Hawker Beechcraft, Bombardier, Cessna, and Piper. This sector of our civil aviation industry also provides livelihoods for those who work at fixed-based operators, aircraft parts sellers, fuel vendors, and even publishing.

Business aviation, in short, provides honest work for many Americans -- many of whom are like the rest of us, just getting by and struggling to make ends meet. Instead, our president who's running an increasingly desperate campaign for re-election in 2012, wants to tar these people as purveyors of corporate greed.

The president told a news conference Wednesday, "The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners."

Corporate jet owners must be bad, even though they provide employment for a large sector of U.S. civil aviation, our president reasons. Well this just isn't true.

Corporate jet owners aren't fat-cats who light big cigars with hundred-dollar bills, as the president and many of his supporters would like us to think. They are people running important industries who can't afford to waste time in commercial airports waiting for commercial flights. Without the benefit of private aviation, these industry executives often cannot make money or continue to employ workers.

And this does not even address the other American industries that our president is trying to hurt here. I used to get a paycheck from the oil industry. So did my dad, and a lot of other people I know. My dad's paychecks, which had the name Chevron up at the top, helped feed and clothe me as I was growing up, and helped pay my way through college. This so-called "big oil" money helped sustain me and my entire family. It's the same with business aviation.

Those who must use corporate jets work hard, they hire people, and they don't deserve this kind of disrespect from our nation's president. Business jet manufacturers have long been demonized as serving only the undeserving rich. They have endured the public's disdain, and have labored under so-called "luxury tax" burdens that few other sectors of our economy must bear.

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), a trade association in Arlington, Va., that represents the nation's aviation and aerospace companies, also was quick to react to President Obama's unfair and heavy-handed rhetoric.

"We're disturbed by President Obama's remarks on business aviation today," wrote Marion Blakey, president and chief executive officer of the AIA shortly after Obama's press conference. "It seems odd that he would undermine the aviation industry one day after visiting Alcoa's factory and praising the workers who make parts and materials that are critical to producing business jets," Blakey wrote. "General aviation plays an important role in our economy and took a substantial hit in the recent recession. We feel that disparaging comments from the president regarding business jet users are not conducive to promoting jobs, investment and economic growth."

Nevertheless, President Obama said at Wednesday's news conference, "I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that."

Well here's an American who doesn't, and I'd like to hear the opinions of every employee who's involved in the civil aviation industry on the subject. What the civil aviation industry does not need is job-killing tax increases. What the civil aviation industry needs right now is sensible economic policies that create and maintain jobs, and get unemployed and under-employed Americans back to work.

This won't happen if the president continues to demonize legitimate industries, and to pit different groups of Americans against one another.

Today's laser weapons buzz may mean military deployment will be sooner than we think

June 28, 2011 11:24 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

There's suddenly a lot of buzz in our industry about laser weapons development. Several different technological advances and upcoming laser weapons tests has me thinking that the first field deployments of laser weapons may be sooner than we think.

The latest news is a completed systems integration by Boeing Directed Energy Systems of the U.S. Army's truck-mounted High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator (HEL TD) -- a high-energy solid-state laser weapon designed to shoot down incoming rockets, mortars, artillery shells, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) -- and planned tests of the experimental weapon this fall at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

That announcement, which came on 27 June, follows closely on last week's $39.8 million contract award from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va., to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. in San Diego to develop a 150-kilowatt high-energy solid-state laser weapon that could be mounted to ships, fighter aircraft, armored combat vehicles, and perhaps even unmanned vehicles. The contract is part of the fourth phase of the DARPA High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) program.

Just two months ago laser weapons experts from DARPA and the U.S. Navy demonstrated a high-energy laser off the California coast as the laser disabled the engines on a small boat. This demonstration was part of the military's Joint High Powered Solid State Laser (JHPSSL) program. The laser fired off California, called the Maritime Laser Demonstrator (MLD), was built by the Northrop Grumman Corp. Space Systems segment in Redondo Beach, Calif.

So what might all this activity in laser weapons research mean? It might mean nothing beyond several programs coming to fruition at the same time. On the other hand, it might mean a lot.

We often read in the press about nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile development in Iran . Now couple that with the upcoming demonstration of a powerful laser weapon designed to defeat incoming rockets and missiles. Coincidence? Maybe, and maybe not.

Despite several laser weapons research programs recently yielding promising technology, a lot more has to be done before these technologies deploy in fielded military systems . The military services first must demonstrated a tangible need for laser weapons, and then they need to find money in their budgets to develop and produce them. That's much more difficult than it sounds.

Still, we've developed high-energy laser weapons technology, and see a demonstrated threat out there. The rest is up to the U.S. military to put two and two together.

Smart money today isn't betting on the success of space exploration

June 3, 2011 2:56 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Wanna know where American space-exploration efforts are headed? Just watch how the smart money bets.

The Boeing Co., one of the world's largest and most influential aerospace companies, is laying off 510 workers in the company's Space Exploration division in Houston, the company announced today. That's 510 employees. That doesn't sound like Boeing has a lot of confidence in the future of U.S. space exploration.

Okay, Boeing officials are saying the layoffs are due to the planned completion of the Space Shuttle program. I'll buy that. But take a look at the long-term prospects for sustained U.S. space exploration, and you'll find not much there.

It's not that U.S. agencies like NASA, which are in place to promote space exploration, don't want to pursue new projects with vigor. There's just no money, and little, if any, national will to send humans into space on any great scale.

The Shuttle program is ending, the International Space Station is being mothballed, and there's really nothing on the horizon with any prospect for adequate funding to generate much more than the occasional press release.

U.S. space exploration is heading for another dark age. It reminds me of the 1970s after the Apollo program, and after the first U.S. space station program, called Skylab, lost its luster. Apollo was done, the moon was conquered, the nation was exhausted from Vietnam. Nobody wanted to put serious time, energy, and money into space anymore.

The Skylab space station, launched in 1973, was left adrift in space without any support. The Saturn V program was over, the Space Shuttle wasn't ready yet, and Skylab in 1979 sunk into the Earth's atmosphere and burned up on re-entry.

The first Space Shuttle launched in 1981 -- two years too late to save Skylab. Now the Space Shuttle program is over, leaving the U.S. with no spacecraft capable of serving the International Space Station. Russia, about the only country left with the rocket capability to get to the Space Station, doesn't want to pay for supporting that mission anymore.

It's looking like the International Space Station could face the same fate as Skylab. I'm betting that about 510 soon-to-be-former employees of Boeing today are thinking the same thing.

Congress, once again, flips the bird to the Pentagon over plans to cut wasteful spending

May 27, 2011 1:20 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

I just want to scream.

Our nation is drowning in debt, the dollar is weakening as a result, we watch as the costs of everything -- driven by skyrocketing costs of gasoline and diesel fuel (which are going up because of the weakening dollar) spirals out of control ... yet we have a Congress that insists on flipping the bird at the Pentagon's efforts to keep defense spending under some semblance of control.

The latest case in point: a plan to second-source the engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to General Electric. The Pentagon doesn't want two companies building engines for the F-35. Those in the Pentagon believe Pratt & Whitney can take care of F-35 engine production. Congress, however, has other plans.

Now don't get me wrong, I got nothing against GE, but isn't one engine supplier enough for an expensive jet fighter-bomber that ultimately we're not going to buy many copies of anyway? Just one supplier buying that engine will be expensive enough. It's big, powerful, expensive, and stealthy. But must we tool-up two companies to build the engine, increase the overhead costs of producing it exponentially, and make two companies split the profits? Does that make sense? Must we?

Really?

Evidently Congress thinks so, even if the Pentagon doesn't. That's the U.S. Congress, our elected representatives, the guys and gals who are supposed to be looking out for us, the taxpayers. The House voted this past week to allow GE to be a second source for the F-35 engine ... even though the Pentagon doesn't want to because it's too expensive.

Let's think about this a second. the Pentagon ... the PENTAGON ... has never set a stellar example of saving money. I'm thinking hundred-dollar hammers, million-dollar toilet seats, thousand-dollar coffee pots -- you know the stories.

Yet the U.S. House of Representatives has clearly demonstrated itself to be even less concerned with cutting spending than the Pentagon. Is that even possible? 'Scuze me while I catch my breath.

Moreover, this is the House. You know, the one where just a few months ago the Republicans took over as the majority. The REPUBLICANS. You know, the guys (and gals) who campaigned on getting the nation's house under financial control, the party of fiscal restraint, blah, blah, blah.

So let's see, we're still drowning in debt. The Administration doesn't seem to care. The House doesn't seem to care. The only ones that seem to care are those in the Pentagon. The PENTAGON!

God, it's even worse than I thought.

Wire news feeds a big hit on Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence Websites

May 19, 2011 10:07 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

The new wire news sections on the Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence Websites are big hits among readers, as the wire news feeds on our sites have drawn 8.4 percent of our total page views over the past three months, or nearly 36,000 total page views.

We added wire news feeds to our sites over the past several months to increase the depth tempo of news content on our sites, and reader response has been surprisingly strong.

We use Lexis-Nexis as our primary wire news provider, which gives us a wide-breadth of late-breaking news of financial statements, products, new developments, contractors, and many other topics of importance to the aerospace and defense industry.

If you haven't seen our wire news sections, surf on over to the Military & Aerospace Electronics wire feed at www.militaryaerospace.com/index/wire-news.html , or the Avionics Intelligence wire feed at www.militaryaerospace.com/index/avi_wire_news.html .

NVIDIA acquires Icera, so what's this got to do with military embedded computing?

May 10, 2011 1:09 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

At first glance, the acquisition this week of cellular communications expert Icera by graphics processing unit (GPU) specialist NVIDIA might seem to have little, if any, influence on the aerospace and defense embedded computing industry. After all, NVIDIA's stated purpose in acquiring Icera is to become a major player in cell phones and mobile computing. What's that got to do with military embedded systems ?

Think a second about network-centric warfare and the digital battlefield . It's all about communications-on-the-move, and mobile computing. What the casual user calls getting Mapquest directions and finding the nearest Starbucks, the military calls situational awareness. NVIDIA acquires Icera ; see a connection here?

Cell phone and mobile tablet users want to find the movie theater, and know what's playing there, and maybe get dessert afterwards. The military, on the other hand, wants to find the enemy, and know if there is air support nearby. After that, well ... maybe there's time for Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts.

But you get the idea; the needs of cell phone and mobile tablet computer users are not that much different from what the military needs. Civilians use commercial cell phone networks and smart phones. The military uses secure defense networks and different versions of the software-defined radio (SDR).

NVIDIA is already making a name for itself in military embedded computing with its NVIDIA CUDA graphics processing unit (GPU), which in additional to processing graphics and imagery turns out to be an effective high-performance parallel processor for floating-point-based digital signal processing.

Those who think NVIDIA isn't thinking about the military in this acquisition might not be looking deeply enough.

BittWare Anemone processor could make FPGAs as popular as general-purpose processors in embedded computing

May 3, 2011 6:24 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

One of the biggest raps against field-programmable gate arrays for digital signal processing is the complexity of the FPGA. To use these powerful-but-frustrating devices, systems designers must be adept in the arcane VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL), as well as in hand-coding to achieve the most efficient performance. Using FPGAs is like a throwback to the old days of programming ASICs in assembly language to squeeze out the most performance possible.

As a result, many designers shy away from using FPGAs when they can, and opt instead for digital signal processing (DSP) architectures based on general-purpose processors like the 2nd Generation Intel Core i7 and on the new breed of graphics processing units (GPUs) like the NVIDIA CUDA. Using the GPP/GPU architecture for DSP-intensive floating-point processing, proponents argue, is easier and faster to market because the software can be written in high-order languages like C and C++, rather than the difficult VHDL.

Much of the reluctance to use FPGAs in DSP applications may be changing, however, with the introduction today of the FPGA/Anemone architecture from BittWare Inc. in Concord, N.H. Anemone is a floating-point co-processor that is programmable in the standard C computer language, which has the potential to make FPGA-based processors as easy and quick to use as the GPP/GPU architectures are becoming.

BittWare's new Anemone/FPGA architecture, which is based on Altera high-performance FPGAs and the Adapteva Epiphany processor, is designed for floating-point embedded computing applications like radar processing, software-defined radio, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence.

I think we'll be hearing a lot more about the Anemone/FPGA architecture in the future.

Are we on the verge of a new era of technological innovation?

April 27, 2011 10:45 AM by John Keller


When it comes to military technology development , everyone knows it's been tough for the past year or so. Research money from the Pentagon has slowed to a trickle, contracting has been stretched out or cancelled altogether, and uncertainty in defense budgets has encouraged companies to hold on to their cash for as long as they can.

Still, there are encouraging signs that the culture of military technology development may be changing. Don't get me wrong, it's more in the realm of tough-love than it is in prospects for more government funding, but if the defense industry plays its cards right, we may be on the verge of a new era in technological innovation, with the added benefit of tossing out some of the old, inefficient business practices in the bargain.

First, there are indications that defense technology companies aren't waiting anymore for internal research and development (IRAD) money from the Pentagon. Instead, they may be more inclined to fund crucial research themselves without government help. Second, Pentagon officials -- at least in their rhetoric -- appear to be favoring fixed-price contracting these days, rather than older contract vehicles that inadvertently encouraged low-ball bidding and cost overruns.

Together, these two trends have the potential to shake the defense industry out of its old way of doing business, and perhaps spark a new and efficient way of developing aerospace and defense technology.

Companies that fund their own IRAD are betting on their own success with their own money. Those who do so are more than likely to pick the strongest and most promising technologies. Second, an emphasis on fixed-price contracting rewards the most nimble and efficient companies, and those that are good at fixed-price contracting will be the winners in any upcoming industry shakeout.

This is no guarantee that such a transformation is in the works. Even if it is, this process will take a long time -- five to ten years, most likely. No one -- in industry or in the Pentagon -- is comfortable with a new way of doing business. Left to their own devices, all concerned would rather remain what they've been comfortable with for years.

Still, if pressure is applied long enough and strongly enough, we might be seeing the start of something big. After all, history shows us that the dinosaurs eventually die out, and the mammals take over.

Army set to kick off M3TD chemical-detection program with RFP due in May

April 24, 2011 6:00 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md., 24 April 2011. The U.S. Army apparently is ready to kick off a new program to develop chemical-detection technology for the next generation of chemical biological radiological nuclear (CBRN) defense programs.

Officials of the Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., announced their intention last week to issue a request for proposals (RFP) between now and late May for the Multi-Mission Multi-Threat Detection (M3TD) effort to develop technology to collect data from contact and non-contact sensors to detect a variety of chemicals of interest.

The RFP will be numbered W911SR-11-R-0020, and will be issued on behalf of the Joint Project Manager for Nuclear Biological and Chemical Contamination Avoidance (JPM NBC CA), which is part of the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense in the Pentagon. The Army may award several contracts.

Companies interested may keep track of the M3TD program and its upcoming RFP online at www.fbo.gov .

Army officials sing praises of UH-72A Lakota at Army Aviation show this week in Nashville

April 21, 2011 2:50 AM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale .
Army officials were delivering heaps of praise upon EADS North America during a press conference this week for their performance regarding production of UH-72A Lakota. Army leaders from Redstone Arsenal, Ala., said at U.S. Army Aviation Association of America AAAA annual forum in Nashville, Tenn. that they have been able to return 23 National Guard Black Hawk helicopters to combat deployment thanks to the on-time and early deliveries of the UH-72A Lakotas from EADS North America in Arlington, Va.

The 23 Black Hawks returned to service is critical, said Col. Neil Thurgood, Army project manager, Utility Helicopters at the press conference. "It is almost the equivalent of an assault battalion," he added.

For more on the Lakota's avionics read "Army helicopters get avionics face-lifts ."

A major reason the that the Lakotas are meeting their delivery goals is that the requirements have not changed, which often happens in a program, causing the integrators and industry partners to have to keep re-designing to keep up with the changes, which equates to delays, Thurgood said. The Army will still make modifications as components go obsolete, but the requirements will not change, he added.

The Lakota was developed through industry-funded research then sold to the Army in a commercial transaction, said John Burke, vice president, EADS North America. Burke also made his comments during the press conference.

They key is that Eurocopter has the largest commercial helicopter fleet in the world, and was able to leverage the commercial technology used in those programs, Burke continued. Also it helps that the Army's "acquisition leadership is focused on where it's going not where it's been," he added.

The UH-72A is produced in Columbus, Miss., at EADS North America's American Europcopter business unit's rotary-wing center of excellence. Production of the Lakota, which is based on Eurocopter's EC145 multi-role helicopter produced in Germany, has been duplicated in Columbus.

The transfer of production to the U.S. was "extremely smooth and EADS did not miss one delivery," Thurgood said.

The Army has a total acquisition target of 345 helicopters through 2015 and 154 have been delivered to the National Guard so far, Thurgood noted. The National Guard will receive 210 of that final total, he added.

The upgraded Lakotas will be used by the National Guard for reconnaissance, border protection, command and control and air movement operations that support U.S. homeland defense, and security missions.

AMC/AEEC attendance up as avionics engineers are bullish on market

April 20, 2011 11:28 PM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
Attendance at the Avionics Maintenance Conference (AMC)/Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) event this week in Memphis Tenn., was up by nearly 20 percent over last year's event, according to AMC organizers -- this is particularly noteworthy considering this is the first year they charged $500 per person to attend. However, the positive vibes I was getting from avionics suppliers, airframers, and airlines about the market health is probably a big factor in the improved turnout.

Attendees are particularly excited about opportunities in new aircraft such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner while the retrofit market looks promising for electronic flight bag (EFB) designers as airlines and operators beging to upgrade their fleets to eb compatible with future air traffic management mandates such as SESAR in Europe and NextGen in the U.S.

Airline representatives were more reserved, expressing concern over rising fuel prices. During AEEC committee meetings there was growing doubt about the whether or not SESAR and NextGen
-- when fully deployed -- will have similar architectures and nomenclature, making it the transition to these systems much easier on the airlines.

The monumental task of just getting different European countries on the same page within the SESAR initiative seems daunting -- let alone harmonizing with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) NextGen program.

The airlines are also looking for solid avionics roadmaps from SESAR and the FAA so they will know what to adopt, when to adopt it, and how much it will cost.

Firing on Fort Sumter, which sparked the American Civil War, happened 150 years ago today

April 12, 2011 11:15 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

U.S. Army Maj. Robert Anderson had passed a troubled night with little, if any, sleep, as he gazed with dread over the parapets of Fort Sumter across the still-dark harbor waters of Charleston, S.C. It was just before 4:30 a.m., 12 April 1861, and the big guns along the waterfront had never looked so menacing.

The standoff had gone on for months, but this morning it was different. The previous December the state of South Carolina, just where he and his small garrison found themselves this day, had voted to leave the Union, and no longer considered themselves part of the United States -- the country for which Maj. Anderson wore his blue uniform.

Anderson and his garrison had occupied Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston Harbor at about the same time South Carolina seceded, and Anderson, commanding officer at the fort, had refused all demands by the new South Carolina government to surrender this edifice guarding the harbor entrances.

Anderson and his president, Abraham Lincoln, still considered Fort Sumter to be U.S. government property, but South Carolina officials believed the fort to be theirs, and they flatly told Anderson that further attempts to hold it would lead to war.

It happened at 4:30 a.m., 150 years ago this morning. Anderson heard the first cannon fire, saw the twinkling fuse of the shell as it rose upward, pausing a moment at the top of its trajectory, and plunge toward him and Fort Sumter.

It was the first shot of the American Civil War, which over the next four years would claim more than 600,000 casualties -- nearly 2 percent of the nation's entire population -- and seared into the national memory place names like Bull Run, Antietam Creek, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and the Wilderness.

Maj. Anderson, however, didn't know any of that yet. All he knew was his fort was the target of a ring of fire around Charleston Harbor. He was outgunned, low on supplies, and had no chance of relief. He held on for two grim days before lowering his flag and surrendering.

Before he left Fort Sumter on 14 April, however, Maj. Anderson took the fort's flag. He went with it to New York City where he showed it off at a Union Square rally that was largest public gatherings that New Yorkers had seen up until that time.

Anderson was promoted to brigadier general, but he had seen his worst fighting of the Civil War. He went to Kentucky to help enforce that state's neutrality in the Civil War, but had to turn over command due to worsening health. Replacing Anderson was another brigadier general named William T. Sherman.

Anderson formally retired from the U.S. Army two years later due to declining health. At war's end in 1865, however, he returned to Fort Sumter, wearing his uniform and bearing the flag he had lowered on that April morning.

He raised that flag once again over the now-crumbling fortress.

What if we considered selling counterfeit electronic parts like we do selling stolen property?

April 8, 2011 12:37 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

The problem of counterfeit electronic parts , and the threat they pose of finding their way into crucial aerospace and defense systems, is bad, and it's getting worse. Not only do counterfeit parts threat to cause reliability problems in military electronic systems, but counterfeit parts also might be loaded with kill switches and other sabotage that could enable an enemy to disable or shut down U.S. systems in the event of conflict.

It's gotten the attention of influential members of Congress, as we have reported. U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., of the Senate Armed Services Committee have vowed to investigate the counterfeit electronic parts problem in the military, and are expected to conduct congressional hearings later this year.

A Senate investigation is all well and good, but this problem always seems to get worse. The reason for this is lax -- or non-existent -- penalties for those who knowingly or unknowingly sell counterfeit electronic parts.

Enforcement is sporadic. Tangible penalties are few and far-between. In short, there's so little risk to trafficking in counterfeit electronic parts that anyone inclined to do so has little to fear ... and this has plenty of people involved in legitimate electronic business pursuits plenty fed-up.

Perhaps it's time we took a fresh look at the issue of counterfeit electronic parts.

If you counterfeit an electronic part -- an integrated circuit, amplifier, battery, connector, or something else -- you're stealing from either the original manufacturer or from authorized resellers, such as aftermarket semiconductor houses like Lansdale Semiconductor in Phoenix, or Rochester Electronics in Newburyport, Mass.

If that's the reality -- and a strong case can be made that it's so -- then perhaps we ought to consider sales of counterfeit electronic parts to be selling stolen property. If we view the problem in those terms, it's bound to get the attention of a lot of people operating on either side of the law who until now have been ignoring the issue.

One of the problems revolves around non-existent penalties for selling counterfeit electronic parts. Those who sell these parts to the U.S. military, for example, can simply claim they didn't know the parts were counterfeit. Moreover, the government will ask for the purchase price back, and return the counterfeit to the seller.

With no penalty, that seller then is free to try to sell that counterfeit part to someone else.

Dale Lillard, president of Lansdale Semiconductor, also is an avid owner and restorer of rare antique cars. He says selling counterfeit electronic parts should be treated like selling stolen cars. It doesn't matter if one knows a car is stolen if he tries to sell it. If caught, that person will be charged with selling a stolen car and face serious jail time.

If sellers of counterfeit electronic parts faced still jail sentences, then a lot fewer people would be doing it, Lillard says, and he's right.

"The government is really doing nothing to stop that [counterfeit] traffic. They know it's coming in, and they are not stopping it," Lillard says. "Nobody is treating counterfeit product like we consider stolen property should be treated," he says. "Give someone a $10,000 fine and six months in jail, and the trafficking in these counterfeit parts will slow."

Perhaps Sens. McCain, Levin, and other members of the Senate Armed Service Committee ought to look at the problem in these terms as they conduct their investigation and call witnesses to hearings later this year.

Are low-profile, quick-turnaround military contracts replacing the traditional procurement process?

March 24, 2011 7:57 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

Defense industry suppliers tell me that military solicitations and contract awards moving through traditional procurement channels have slowed to a trickle, as military program managers safeguard their budgets by delaying or cancelling procurements that had been in the pipeline. That's the bad news.

The good news is that RFPs and contracts moving through non-traditional procurement channels appear to be picking up. These kinds of procurements typically involve small-scale, quick-turnaround contracts for urgently needed component replacements and upgrades that often take place right in the field.

The military seems to be moving in the direction of these quick procurements because they can be kept at a low profile, often involve limited numbers of platforms, and are kept spread out and reasonably priced. Translated, that means the military services can keep their weapons systems functioning and up to date with reduced threat from the bean-counting budget cutters in the Pentagon.

This seems to be a win-win situation for the military services that need new technology, as well as for defense suppliers providing subsystems like embedded computing, rugged displays, and high-reliability data storage. Those in the defense industry can maintain their cash flow while they wait for traditional procurement channels to open up once more -- if they ever really do.

There's a dark side to this approach, however: those in the defense industry are losing trust in the traditional procurement system. It's possible they are becoming less inclined to respond promptly to traditional procurement programs, and sometimes are reluctant to submit bids at all, where in the recent past they would have been jumping on these programs with enthusiasm.

"We have to be extremely sharp in choosing the horse we want to ride, so we can be reasonably sure the horse will finish the race, and not go lame in the process," one supplier told me recently.

Perhaps there's a silver lining to all this. This could be the beginning of the kind of organic defense procurement reform that ultimately could speed all kinds of military technology procurement, and lessen the instances of these monolithic procurements that take forever, cost billions, and succeed only in fielding obsolete technology.

Maybe aviation market is turning around

March 17, 2011 11:50 AM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
After this week I'm feeling very confident that the avionics market and the aviation market as a whole is definitely on the upward climb. We just wrapped up our 2011 Avionics & Defence Electronics Europe conference in Munich this afternoon with our attendance up 35 percent over last year.

The attendees were excited about the content on future air traffic management (ATM) systems such as Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) and the U.S. Next-Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) . They were also smiling about the fact that money is also starting to be spent to be spent on equipping avionics systems with future ATM technology such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems.


A commercial avionics market report from Frost & Sullivan backed up the enthusiasm on the floor, but in a more conservative way. Diogenis Papiomytis, principal consultant with Frost, said that the avionics market will not recover till 2014, but it is on the upswing.

He said that technologically speaking navigation and communication equipment are the best investment bet from now till 2020.

We've found that our show attendance typically echoes market health as well as strong content and good marketing. So we're really looking forward to next year's event in Munich.

So were the attendees, as amany of them were looking to be part of the program for next year. If you are too then stay posted here as we will have a Call for Papers coming out the beginning of the summer.

Pilot training taking backseat to new avionics, says Avionics Europe keynote

March 17, 2011 9:56 AM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
Pilot training and not new technology is the key to improving flight safety, said Capt. Manfred Mueller, head of flight safety for Lufthansa Airlines, during his keynote address at the Avionics & Defence Electronics Europe conference this week.

Mueller told the audience that too often cost management not new avionics is the real reason flight training has been reduced in flight programs worldwide. New avionics technology , despite its amazing capabilities, can fail catastrophically and pilots need to be have the training to deal with those emergency situations.

Flight training centers are more about making money and keeping costs down and do so by cutting back on pilot training, Mueller said. Flight crews need to implement more "fallback strategy training" in addition to their own training, he added.


Fallback refers to the training you fallback on when your state-of-the-art cockpit avionics fail.

It is often said that new aircraft as the Boeing 787 will reduce pilot training costs because they are easy to fly, Meuller said. That is dangerous thinking and hopefully it will not take more plane crashes to increase training.

Mueller said too often abnormal procedures are designed by lawyers when they should be designed by human factor experts.

Mueller's lawyer comment was echoed in the following keynote delivered by Vincent de Vroey, head of Association of European Airlines, when discussing the relevancy of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

"EASA needs to focus on safety only," de Vroey said. Too often legal teams get involved and they lose their focus, he noted.

Tsunami and Earthquake in Japan, bully confrontation video, point to the virtues of self-reliance

March 15, 2011 12:49 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

I'm thinking about a couple of wholly separate, yet strangely related, recent events that point to the virtues of self-reliance -- even amid forces that try to compel people to rely on others for their well-being.

The first event is the tsunami and earthquake in Japan , and the other involves the case of Australian student Casey Heynes, who finally stood up to serious schoolyard bullying, and is paying the price for it.

One of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history hit off the east coast of Japan last Friday, leveling buildings, igniting fires, and triggering explosions at nuclear power plants. A resulting tsunami that rolled in from the Pacific killed thousands, washed homes out to sea, and beached large ocean-going freighter ships inland where they just don't belong.

Then just this week, a video has gone viral on the Internet depicting a teenage school boy in Australia, who news reports say was frequently bullied at school, turning on a vicious attacker by lifting the attacker up and slamming him to the ground, sending him whining, crying, and limping away.



So what do these things have to do with each other? I couldn't put my finger on it, at first. Then I started to think about self-reliance. The stalwart Japanese victims of the tsunami and earthquake are not sitting by waiting for others to help them. News reports depict well-organized efforts to feed the hungry, heal the hurt, house the homeless, and evacuate those in danger from radiation near potentially compromised nuclear power plants.

Even in the middle of the worst disaster and devastation since World War II, the Japanese apparently are stepping forward to deal with tsunami and earthquake problems largely by themselves.

I was struck, at first, by a news report this morning entitled Don't donate money to Japan . The reason: you'll just get in the way; the Japanese know best how to deal with this twin disaster, and aid from abroad -- no matter how well-intentioned -- threatens to pile money where it's least needed, and leave the most-needed areas without.

The bottom line: let the Japanese handle this. They're on top of the situation, so don't get in the way.



Sounds like some of the advice that Casey Heynes took when he put a wicked little bully in his place. Not likely he'll get bullied much again -- not after his pals saw the attacker limping and crying away. Heynes apparently is paying the price for standing up for himself, however. News reports say he, not his attacker, is getting suspended from school.

So everything has its price. The Japanese will spend billions recovering from this most recent disaster, but they'll do the job right. Casey Heynes will spend some time home from school -- at worst might even have to find another school. In the end, though, everyone is standing up for himself, and price they pay to do so will be worth it.

Counterfeit parts: problem with military electronics designs finally getting attention on Capitol Hill

March 11, 2011 4:12 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

Maybe the magnitude of the problem has finally sunk in among U.S. political leaders at the highest levels. I'm talking about the scourge of high-tech -- namely counterfeit electronic parts that have been finding their way into military and aerospace electronics and have the potential to compromise U.S. national security.

Counterfeit electronic components pop up in military and other mission-critical systems when sources for these parts dry up, or if systems integrators are under such financial pressures that they turn to the unreliable sources of electronic parts to cut costs.

The problem threatens at least parts of substandard or unreliable quality that could cause critical military systems to malfunction at the worst possible time. At worst, counterfeit parts could contain software or other back doors that might enable enemies to disable them during periods of conflict.

Now the problem has grown such that it is getting the attention of powerful leaders on Capitol Hill -- one of them a recent presidential candidate.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., are launching a congressional investigation into counterfeit electronic parts in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) supply chain. The bipartisan team of lawmakers released a statement Thursday that reads:

"The Senate Armed Services Committee has initiated an investigation into counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense's supply chain. Counterfeit electronic parts pose a risk to our national security, the reliability of our weapons systems and the safety of our military men and women. The proliferation of counterfeit goods also damages our economy and costs American jobs. The presence of counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense Departments supply chain is a growing problem that government and industry share a common interest in solving. Over the course of our investigation, the Committee looks forward to the cooperation of the Department of Defense and the defense industry to help us determine the source and extent of this problem and identify possible remedies for it."

The problem of counterfeit parts has received attention in corners of prime U.S. defense contractors, as well as from electronic parts suppliers and distributors.

Perhaps now the problem will get the attention -- and perhaps the resolution -- that it truly deserves.

CompactPCI Serial could do for PCI what VPX did for VME

March 7, 2011 1:48 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller .

There's a new embedded computing standard in town called CompactPCI Serial , which brings PCI embedded computing into the era of high-speed serial switch fabric networks, and has the potential to do for PCI embedded computing what VPX did for VME .

CompactPCI Serial (PICMG CPCI-S.0) was ratified just last week at the Embedded World conference and trade show in Nuremberg, Germany, and has been on the street for so little time, in fact, that the PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group (PICMG), based in Wakefield, Mass., hasn't had a chance to put out a formal announcement yet on the new guidelines, says PICMG President Joe Pavlat.

CompactPCI Serial offers embedded computer manufacturers and users the same Eurocard mechanics as the parallel databus version of CompactPCI -- 6U and 3U card form factors, options for conduction cooling and rugged construction, and card locks. "Everything about the Eurocard architecture is the same," Pavlat says.

The evolution from parallel-databus CompactPCI to CompactPCI Serial is like comparing the design of a 15-year-old PC to a PC fresh out of the box, Pavlat says. The new standard simply brings PCI into the realm of modern computing.

Aerospace and defense systems designers -- particularly those working with CompactPCI -- have a big stake in CompactPCI Serial, Pavlat says. "Those who have designed CompactPCI into mil-and-aero apps have a clear upgrade path. It's a really nice upgrade path for CompactPCI."

Pavlat predicts that aerospace and defense systems designers in the near term most likely will rely on hybrid-backplane architectures that enable them to use parallel and serial CompactPCI boards and components in the same system. The new standard facilities the use of serial technologies like USB 3.0, SATA, CompactPCI lanes, and Ethernet in CompactPCI-based systems, he says.

MEN Micro Inc. in Ambler, Pa., was one of the first embedded computing manufacturers to introduce CompactPCI Serial products, and Pavlat says the industry can expect a bunch of new products to hit the market in the coming months.

Still, Pavlat cautions that CompactPCI Serial -- like other new technologies -- most likely will take five years from standard ratification to full deployment.

Convoy combat training

February 26, 2011 9:35 PM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale .

We've all read the stories or seen the newscasts about how dangerous convoys are in Iraq and Afghanistan -- facing hidden improvised explosive devices (IEDs), snipers, and shelling. It would seem an impossible scenario to train for, but engineers at Lockheed Martin Global Training and Logistics in Orlando, Fla., have developed a training system that does just that with actual convoy trucks driving through a synthetic environment with un-tethered training weapons.

This week I got the opportunity to try out the company's Combat Convoy Simulator (CCS), which provides an immersive training environment for a variety of military vehicles , including the High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) and the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) for the U.S. Marine Corps. According to the system data sheet during each training mission, the vehicle commander and a crew of up to four students are presented with realistic terrain, weather, and threat environments focused on warfare scenarios such as re-supply, patrol, logistics support, high-value target extraction, medical evacuation and calls for close air support/calls for fire. After the mission planning is complete, each training mission focuses on defending against current and evolving threats.



I chose the gunner role, having to fire the heavy gun turret on top of the vehicle while it was "moving" through a synthetic Afghanistan town and being shelled. I'm just a journalist in a suit, in a simulation, and could barely control that thing. The thought of actually driving through a hot zone in Iraq at night is scary as hell.

The weapons had a bit of recoil, which I was told is similar to what live weapons feel like.

Lockheed Martin has facilities where they group together about six different simulators create a virtual convoy to help warfighters learn how to communicate when the world around them is literally exploding.

Thanks to Heather Kelly, Lockheed Martin Communications, and the technicians and engineers at Lockheed Martin Global Training and Logistics for the experience.

Rockwell Collins says Army committed to networking the warfighter despite smaller DOD budget request

February 25, 2011 12:52 PM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
During an interview with Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on their new MicroGRAM GPS product this week at the AUSA Winter Symposium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., we strayed briefly onto the Department of Defense 2012 budget request. They had a positive outlook on it.

What Rockwell Collins looked for in the budget was continued support for networking technology , says Sam Hubbard, senior director, Army and Defense Programs at Rockwell Collins. Networking for the warfighter is an area that the company is heavily invested in with technology such as their GPS products and their cross domain solution for the CERDEC Tactical Army Cross Domain Information Solution (TACDIS) program -- MicroTurnstile device.

Despite the overall budget cuts "we like the fact" that the Army remains steadfast in its efforts to bring the network down to the individual soldier and that funding for those efforts appears to be in tack, Hubbard says.

For more on the budget watch "Video: Military & Aerospace Electronics editor gives his take on the 2012 DOD budget request ."

The MicroTurnstile is being used in the Army's Nett Warrior program. It can be worn by the warfighter and operates with Nett Warrior soldier equipment, providing bi-directional transfer of data and voice.

JTRS is poorly named, it's more of a computer network than a radio

February 24, 2011 5:27 PM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
While watching a demonstration of the Airborne and Maritime Fixed (AMF) Station portion of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program at the Lockheed Martin booth at AUSA Winter in Fort Lauderdale, I kept thinking JTRS is a misnomer. The AMF demo showed a system disseminating not just voice communication but real-time video such as battlefield action and video of wounded warfighters transmitted to doctors for remote triage.

I should note this was a simulated demonstration. The AMF JTRS is just entering testing phase after completing the critical design review phase, says Mark Norris, vice president AMF JTRS Program at Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions in San Diego.

The demo showed multiple aircraft, ground vehicles, and dismounted soldiers communicating voice, video, and data over long distances.

The simulation was put on by Alexander Moore, systems engineer senior at Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions. Moore is a retired Army officer who served in Iraq. He also was a captain for the Army football team at West Point and was featured in an article online at ESPN .

Thanks for the demonstration and thanks for your service, Mr. Moore.

The demo continues tomorrow at AUSA Winter at the Broward County Convention Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Chinook C47F pilots loving their glass cockpit

February 24, 2011 12:50 AM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
"There's nothing like a new Chinook helicopter smell," someone said near me as I boarded a new CH-47F Chinook helicopter at AUSA Winter's static display outside the convention center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. He's right it did smell new, but perhaps the most shiny part of the new aircraft was its avionics.

A Chinook helicopter pilot -- Lt. Jack Tartaglia -- ran me through the aircraft's new glass cockpit , provided by Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

A former pilot on the CH-47U model, he told me the glass cockpits are far and away better for pilots than older cockpits with mechanical gauges just from an ease of use and efficiency perspective. Tartaglia said his favorite part in the avionics suite is the map display, which operates in real-time, displaying data from anywhere in the world.

For more on the Chinook cockpits read "Army uses open standards for helicopter avionics ."

It took years for glass cockpits to be fielded, but now new features are added every few weeks such as multiple radios and extra slots for data cards. The pilots can change their flight plan on the fly by just plugging in a data card, then the helicopter just flies on its own according to the new flight plan.

The best thing about my little tour was the enthusiasm of the Chinook crew. They absolutely love the new model.

Chinook CH-47F pilots loving their glass cockpit

February 24, 2011 12:40 AM by Joseph Normandin


Posted by John McHale
"There's nothing like a new Chinook helicopter smell," someone said near me as I boarded a new CH-47F Chinook helicopter at AUSA Winter's static display outside the convention center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. He's right it did smell new, but perhaps the most shiny part of the new aircraft was its avionics.

A Chinook helicopter pilot -- Lt. Jack Tartaglia -- ran me through the aircraft's new glass cockpit , provided by Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

A former pilot on the CH-47U model, he told me the glass cockpits are far and away better for pilots than older cockpits with mechanical gauges just from an ease of use and efficiency perspective. Tartaglia said his favorite part in the avionics suite is the map display, which operates in real-time, displaying data from anywhere in the world.

For more on the Chinook cockpits read "Army uses open standards for helicopter avionics ."

It took years for glass cockpits to be fielded, but now new features are added every few weeks such as multiple radios and extra slots for data cards. The pilots can change their flight plan on the fly by just plugging in a data card, then the helicopter just flies on its own according to the new flight plan.

The best thing about my little tour was the enthusiasm of the Chinook crew. They absolutely love the new model.

Redesigned Military & Aerospace Electronics Website helps you see more, and see it fast: www.militaryaerospace.com

February 21, 2011 10:09 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Military & Aerospace Electronics online is helping readers see more, and see it more quickly, than ever before with the latest Website redesign at www.militaryaerospace.com .

The Military & Aerospace Electronics Website redesign puts the latest content first in the upper lefthand box called Today's Headlines, for readers who just don't have time for anything else than what's going on right now -- today.

If you have a little more time, take a look at the Mil & Aero Blog , which now is located on the top righthand corner next to Today's Headlines. This is where you can get the editor's take on the latest developments, contracts, design-ins, and technology trends relevant to the aerospace and defense electronics industry.

Need a deep dive? Just slide down the lefthand column just below Today's Headlines, and you'll find our Exclusive Content department, which is home to all of the in-depth, exclusive technology and application features in Military & Aerospace Electronics.

Need a little break? You can let the Military & Aerospace Electronics Website do the driving by checking out the Military & Aerospace Video section in the righthand column just below the blog. One of our newest innovations, the Mil & Aero Video presents a weekly video blog from the editors of Military & Aerospace Electronics and Avionics Intelligence. Here you also can see product demos and aerospace and defense systems in action.

Have a minute to socialize? Then surf on over the Mil-Aero Command Post community , located on the righthand side of the homepage below the videos. The Command Post community, hosted by Military & Aerospace Electronics Senior Editor Courtney Howard, is where readers get their say, and where readers can comment on a variety of pertinent topics.

Now, if you would like to browse our news content, scroll on down the lefthand column of the home page to the Latest News section. Here you'll see our top news stories from the past several days. Want more news? Just click the See All Latest News link at the end of that department.

It's the same drill for the Defense Executive department on the righthand column just below the Command Post community. This is your home for the latest and archived news and events of keen interest to executives, program managers, and engineering managers.

Want to brows the latest new products? Keep on sliding down the lefthand column to the Industry News Flash department for the most recent products announcements on embedded computing, power electronics, electro-optics, and more.

Also on the page you can see what's most popular on the site right now, and browse through white papers from some of the most influential companies in our industry.

While you're on the page, don't forget to check out the links at the top to our sister site, Avionics Intelligence , and our embedded computing topic center, where you can see a digest of all the latest content related to embedded computing.

I think you'll agree the site is brighter, more useful, and faster to read then you've ever seen, and we're not done. Look back often to see the latest developments we're making to be the most crucially important site on the World Wide Web for anyone interested in Military & Aerospace Electronics.

Video first look: how General Dynamics proposes to create an air-deployable WIN-T tactical communications node

February 18, 2011 1:26 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

TAUNTON, Mass., 18 Feb. 2011. Military communications designers at General Dynamics C4 Systems in Taunton, Mass., have created a prototype Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) tactical communications node that is small enough to be air dropped from C-130 military cargo aircraft, or sling-loaded underneath the U.S. military's largest helicopters.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For some reason that we're trying to figure out, the video with this blog does not render properly when using the Internet Explorer browser. If you can, take a look at the blog with Firefox, Chrome, or an alternate browser to IE.

This internal GD C4 Systems project, called Tactical Communications Node-Light (TCN-Light), has packed full WIN-T Increment 2 tactical communications capability onto a one-ton up-armored Humvee. The U.S. Army's standard WIN-T Increment 2 node must be packed on a five-ton truck that is part of the military's Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)




Shrinking the WIN-T Increment 2 tactical communications node from a 5-ton truck to a one-ton Humvee means that mobile, rapid-response Army units such as the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), the 82nd Airborne Division, and the 10th Mountain Division, could be able to take advantage of WIN-T Increment 2 communications capability during early deployments in the field.

General Dynamics has taken on the project to shrink WIN-T communications nodes as an internal company project; the Army has not yet given the company approval to move ahead with production.

WIN-T is a satellite and land-based tactical communications network that enables fighting forces to send and receive voice, data, imagery, and video information to help them maneuver, protect themselves, and bring firepower to bear on the enemy to help them fight and win battles.

WIN-T Increment 1 provides networking capabilities for stationary forces down to the battalion level, while WIN-T Increment 2 provides networking on-the-move down to the company level. Future Increment 3 capability will provide full networking on-the-move to the company level for maneuver, fires and aviation brigades.

If General Dynamics can convince Army leaders of how useful the TCN-light capability is, then the most advanced tactical communications capability would be available to U.S. assault forces on the first day of battle.

DOD budget request for 2012 is out; procurement and UAVs are up, RDT&E is down, overseas military ops see drastic cuts

February 14, 2011 2:05 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller



The DOD budget request for fiscal 2012 was released today, and contains good news for military procurement, more disappointing news for research and development, the start of a wind-down of overseas military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon is asking Congress for $670.9 billion in fiscal 2012, a 37.3 percent reduction from the 2011 request. The proposed $670.9 billion 2012 DOD budget contains $553.1 billion for normal Pentagon operations, a 4.2 percent increase from 2011 -- and $117.8 billion for military operations, which represents a 41.5 percent decrease from 2011. Federal fiscal year 2012 begins on 1 Oct. 2011.

The 2012 DOD budget request has $113.01 billion for procurement -- up from the 2011 request of $104.79 billion; $75.33 billion for research and development -- a drop from the 2011 request of $80.39 billion; and $204.42 billion for operations and maintenance -- up sharply from the 2011 request of $184.49 billion.

With proposed deep cuts in spending for overseas military operations, the Pentagon could free up money for other things. Some of this extra money is reflected in the DOD's proposals for procurement, operations, and maintenance, but fails to make its way into the Pentagon's beleaguered research and development budget, which saw reductions in 2011 after hovering in the $80-billion range for several years.

DOD officials may regret neglecting the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) budget. After nearly a decade of Pentagon spending for active military operations in South Asia, systems developers are eager for new systems and technologies. Cutting the RDT&E budget may frustrate some of those efforts.

The 2012 Pentagon budget has big good news for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Total proposed UAV spending in 2012 would be 1,395 -- up sharply from the 2011 DOD request for 459 UAVs. Unmanned aircraft purchases in 2012 would include three Global Hawk and Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAVs, 84 Predator UAVs, and 1,308 smaller UAVs.

Now it's time for hearing season in Congress, where lawmakers will pick apart the Pentagon's request, make as much political hay as they can, and hopefully emerge next September with a usable spending plan.

Sylmar Earthquake 40th anniversary: the day is still seared in memory

February 9, 2011 10:18 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Forty years ago this morning was one of the most memorable earthquakes I ever experienced -- and this is coming from a California native. It was the Sylmar Earthquake , which hit southern California at 6:01 a.m. pacific time on 9 Feb. 1971. The initial Sylmar quake and its aftershocks killed 65 people and caused more than half a billion dollars damage, demolishing two hospitals, dropping 12 Los Angeles freeway overpasses, and damaging the picturesque old buildings at Los Angeles High School beyond repair.

I was an 11-year-old 6th grader that morning, and I remember waking up feeling like I was in the backseat of a Ford Bronco in the midst of an off-road race. My bed wasn't just shaking; it was jumping up and down, leaving the floor. I felt like the quake just wouldn't stop. It was easily the worst one I'd ever been up to that time. I think it still is.



I lived in El Segundo near LAX at the time, where damage wasn't severe. The worst effects of the quake were north of us in the San Fernando Valley, where near the epicenter in Sylmar, the Olive View Hospital was knocked off its foundation, collapsing the first floor of the building. The Veterans Administration Hospital in San Fernando collapsed in the quake. In both hospitals 49 people died.

Most of the other fatalities happened in freeway overpass collapses, including the one connecting the Interstate 5 freeway and the Foothill Freeway, and the recently completed Newhall Pass interchange connecting Interstate 5 and the Antelope Valley Freeway. Strangely, the rebuilt Newhall Pass interchanged collapsed again 23 years later in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.

The Sylmar quake also caused Los Angeles High School to be condemned, demolished, and rebuilt. It was one of the prettiest old high schools around then; today it's generic and ugly. Other oldtimers might remember a popular Friday night television show in the early '70s called Room 222, in which the outside shots were of Los Angeles High School.

In L.A. after that earthquake, we used to talk about "February Ninth" like we talk about 9/11 today. One of the best conversation starters for years afterward was "where were you when the earthquake hit?"

There have been other, more notable earthquakes in California before and after the Sylmar quake. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake probably tops the list. Others include the 1933 Long Beach quake, the 1989 San Francisco quake, and the 1994 Northridge quake.

No others, however, were as personally terrifying for me than the one in 1971. I think that quake, and the date February 9, will always be seared in my memory.

Even the most rugged electronics can come in small packages

February 7, 2011 2:19 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

When you write about advanced electronics all the time, as we do, it's easy to get jaded when it comes to packing capability and extreme ruggedness in very small packages. I was reminded of this when I visited the Crane Interpoint booth at the recent AFCEA West conference and trade show in San Diego.

Crane makes the MFP series of rugged point-of-load (POL) converters for applications in harsh environments, and you really have to see it to appreciate what can be done in such small packages these days, as Simon Abel of Crane demonstrated in the video below.



The CRANE MFP POL devices are not much bigger than a NECCO wafer , yet these power electronics devices produce stable power in temperatures from -70 to 150 degrees Celsius, with low noise, and without external capacitors.

Not only that, but these devices also are rugged enough for almost any aerospace and defense application -- even in the harshest of environments, including space, combat aircraft, and shipboard applications.

Sometimes it's an eye-opening experience to take the time for appreciating just what today's electronics experts are capable of doing.

IED blow up your vehicle? No problem with the Thales MSCCS communications system

February 4, 2011 12:09 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

It's reasonable to assume that your communications might become a problem if a roadside bomb blows up your vehicle underneath you. Not so with the Mounted Soldier Cordless Communications System (MSCCS) from Thales Communications Inc. in Clarksburg, Md.

Thales officials demonstrated how the MSCCS military communications system can help crews of military vehicles take a lickin', and keep on tickin' if they encounter improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in combat zones. Thales made the demonstration in the company's booth at the recent AFCEA West conference in San Diego.

The Thales MSCCS is designed as a secure rugged intercom system for combat vehicles . The system can transform quickly into a secure tactical radio system, however, if an IED destroys its vehicle and forces the vehicle crew to flee for their lives. Andrew Bostock , the Thales Communications director of business development, put the system through its paces at AFCEA West, as you can see in the video below.



The Thales MSCCS is different from other armored vehicle intercom systems, in that it helps crews communicate wirelessly if they must leave their vehicles -- even if they must leave the vehicle quickly after an unpleasant encounter with an IED. Other kinds of vehicle intercoms, Bostock explained, must be tethered to the vehicle by a cable. That might not be an option if the vehicle is a burning, explosive wreck.

The MSCCS integrates the Thales AN/PRC-148 joint tactical radio system (JTRS) enhanced multiband inter/intra team radio -- otherwise known as JEM -- into the vehicle intercom through an interface box and smart adapter cable. If something breaks the tethered connection, the JEM radio maintains communications with the vehicle intercom, enabling crew members to maintain communications with one another seamlessly.

If the vehicle and its intercom are disabled or destroyed -- by something like an IED explosion -- the surviving crew members change the channel to create a type-1 tactical radio, which they can use to call for help, medical assistance, and to keep in touch with one another.

That type of capability could come in handy in a lot of battlefield conditions.

Defense primes gives suppliers marching orders to lobby Congress to preserve aerospace and defense jobs

January 26, 2011 8:55 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

SAN FRANCISCO -- Interesting tidbit overheard yesterday at the SPIE Photonics West conference in San Francisco. It seems one of the nation's prime defense contractors, in a recent Webcast for its suppliers, is strongly urging its military subcontractors to urge their senators and congressional representatives to preserve current levels of defense spending in the interest of creating and preserving jobs.

Job creation is not a bad message, certainly, yet does this revelation, if true, indicate that defense primes are enlisting their suppliers to lobby their senators and congressmen on the prime contractors' behalf? If so, the driving message certainly is the issue of jobs, which promises to be a cornerstone of the upcoming 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

Conventional wisdom says the U.S. Department of Defense budget is on its way down. Yet could the notion of sustained defense spending in federal fiscal year 2012 and beyond become a political device for trumpeting job creation and preservation? I think it just could.

For its political opponents, the defense budget is an icon of wasteful spending, in terms of dollars and human lives. Yet with defense primes and their suppliers beating the drum for jobs, many of the negative connotations of military spending just might be turned around.

After all, there are defense suppliers in virtually every state and congressional district. If every congressman and senator is lobbied hard and heavy for sustaining defense spending in the interest of creating and preserving jobs, the DOD budget in 2012 might be turned into a political winner.

Let's watch for the DOD's 2012 budget request coming up soon to see if act-one of this strategy plays out. Federal fiscal year 2012 begins next October 1.

The Army likes contractors who are on time and on budget

January 25, 2011 4:56 PM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
The headline for this blog may state the obvious, but unfortunately defense prime contractors are not always able to meet those lofty goals -- on time and on budget. Note the cancellations of programs such as Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) -- cancelled in 2008 for what the Army said were cost overruns and other issues.

However, there are some contractors who do hit their targets, and the Army is not shy about issuing their praise for these efforts such as the Security & Support Mission Equipment Package (MEP) modification to the UH-72A Lakota, led by EADS North America in Arlington, Va. This MEP included new avionics systems and other equipment.

"EADS North America has never missed a delivery to the Army on this program," Lt. Col. Dave Bristol, product manager for Lakota helicopters at Redstone Arsenal told me during an interview I was doing on helicopter avionics upgrades . "They've done a great job of being on time if not early, which is unheard of in a program."

For more on the Lakota upgrade read "Army looks to helicopter avionics upgrades and technology insertion in the absence of new rotorcraft programs ."

In addition to EADS North America Bristol also noted the "hard work" of the National Guard Bureau, Project Executive Office Aviation, American Eurocopter, and other suppliers.

Bristol's enthusiasm for EADS North America made me think back to 2008, when I was at the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) annual meeting in Washington. It was right around when the ARH was cancelled and you could sense the frustration and disappointment of Army Aviation officials over the program's failures.

That's why it was nice to hear Bristol's comments. I hope it's a recurring trend. The country could use a new helicopter platform -- even though it will take ten years at least from start to finish.

The Lakota's success certainly bodes well for EADS North America too.

Managing thermals in Army helicopter cockpits

January 24, 2011 4:36 PM by John McHale


Posted by John McHale
Managing thermals in avionics is a big challenge in the OH-58F Kiowa Warrior upgrade, says Lt. Col. Scott Rauer, product manager, Kiowa Warrior Program Executive Office at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. Unlike the Apache helicopter, which has a dedicated cooling system, "my two main boxes are clustered together where they are open to ambient air and operating in hot environments."

Rauer made his comments to me during interviews for an article I was writing on helicopter avionics. For more on that interview read "Army looks to helicopter avionics upgrades and technology insertion in the absence of new rotorcraft programs ."

"The new smaller boxes are better at thermal management and we've also noticed a trend toward more thermally efficient electronics at the board and chip level," Rauer says.

It can take quite a bit of problem solving as these aircraft are operatign in very hot environments with limited space in the cockpit, Rauer says. In one case "we are designing a box where the exhaust from one box blows to the intake of another box -- to help keep it cool. It's delicate jigsaw puzzle."

Engineers at Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, say creative thinking is necessary as the new processors are generating so much more heat. For one program Rockwell Collins helped manage the thermals on a display system by taking advantage of light emitting diode (LED) power efficiencies for the backlighting, which helped reduce the overall temperature of the system, says Dan Toy, principal marketing manager in mobility and rotary wing business area at Rockwell Collins.

Investing in filters, compensators, and unique optics can help minimize the power draw from a lighting source, Toy adds. "We are constantly making sure we have the appropriate solution."

Even though processors are getting power hungry you can do a lot more in single processor than ever before, says Steve Edwards, chief technology officer for Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing in Leesburg, Va. "If we can cool a module, you may have less power at the platform level."

Some vendors will allow users to change clock speeds to reduce power on Intel chips, Edwards continues. If the application does not need to do full-up processing, the clock speed adjustment will enable them to throttle back and reduce power voltage on the chip, he adds.

Curtiss-Wright Controls Electronic Systems in Littleton, Mass., has a new technology line called CoolWall that is available in a 3U form factor and ideal for applications such as helicopter avionics or unmanned aerial vehicles, Edwards says. This technology is based on a proprietary mixture of metal composite materials, and provides the ability to thermally manage high-power payloads in multiprocessing and digital signal processing (DSP) applications.

It came from Curtiss-Wright's acquisition of rugged enclosure and chassis designer Hybricon, he adds.

Army still exploring synthetic vision technology

January 21, 2011 1:52 PM by John Mchale


Posted by John McHale
During interviews for a story I was writing on Army helicopter avionics for our February issue of Military & Aerospace Electronics the topic of synthetic vision came up while speaking with Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Honeywell Aerospace in Phoenix. Both companies are designing synthetic vision systems for commercial aviation.

I didn't use the synthetic vision part in the feature as it is not a requirement for any current Army rotorcraft avionics upgrades , but the Army is exploring the technology according to Rockwell Collins and Honeywell.

For more on Army helicopter avionics upgrades read "Army looks to helicopter avionics upgrades and technology insertion in the absence of new rotorcraft programs ."

"We are working on synthetic vision technology" with the Army and how that could be integrated into the Common Avionics Architecture System (CASS) program, says Boe Svatek, programs manager for advanced rotorcraft programs at Rockwell Collins,

For more on the CAAS program read "Army uses open-systems standards for helicopter avionics ."

Due to the current funding environment, it is hard for the Army to justify an upgrade to synthetic vision right now, he says.

Rockwell Collins engineers are looking to enhance the image resolution for helicopter operations, Svatek says.

"What's been done in synthetic vision to date has been for fixed wing aircraft," Svatek says. "We want to make it more effective for rotorcraft."

Synthetic vision is still a little bit ahead of its time, he adds.

Honeywell's synthetic vision technology was used in a DARPA program called Sandblaster with Sikorsky in stratford, Conn., as the prime contractor, says Lonny Rakes, director of business development for U.S. Army programs at Honeywell. The system took sensor information from a millimeter wave sensor from Sierra Nevada in Sparks, Nev., and integrated it with a synthetic terrain view, he adds.

The sensor data blended with the synthetic vision enabled pilots to have a view outside the cockpit in degraded visual environments such as those caused by sand or dust, Rakes says.

Sandblaster was completed successfully and Honeywell is involved in a follow-on contract to explore the problem further, Rakes says. He declined to comment on the specifics of the follow-on contract.

Commandos attack, and pirates die; South Korean navy show the world how to do anti-piracy

January 21, 2011 1:16 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

The Americans and the British lately have been looking into advanced technologies that may have applications in countering Somali pirates operating in and around the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. These technologies involve directed-energy weapons such as non-lethal lasers to distract and deter pirates, and high-power microwaves that could kill the engines on pirate boats.

Yet while the British and Americans have been talking about new high-tech approaches to anti-piracy , the South Korean navy is showing everyone in the world how to do it -- board captured ships and kill every pirate in sight.

Commandos from the South Korean navy stormed a ship earlier today that had been hijacked by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean, killed at least eight of the pirates in cabin-to-cabin gunfights, captured five other pirates who wisely chose capture over death, and rescued all 21 hostages aboard the 11,500-ton chemical freighter.

The commando force suffered no injuries. The ship's captain suffered a non-life-threatening gunshot wound during the operation. The South Korean force had a little help from a nearby U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, which also provided a helicopter to transfer the wounded Korean ship's captain.

Those Korean sailors don't mess around, and that's the way it should be. "We will not tolerate any activities that threaten the safety and lives of our people," said South Korea President Lee Myung-Bak, who authorized the operation.

That's not too difficult to understand -- unlike, perhaps, non-lethal lasers and high-power microwaves.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is a loose cannon who needs to be secured in Pima County, Arizona

January 11, 2011 10:27 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

I'm wondering today just exactly what making broad, factless accusations of radio show talk hosts has to do with investigating the shooting Saturday in Tucson, Ariz. , that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six bystanders.

Nothing, it seems, and that's the trouble with Clarence Dupnik, sheriff of Pima County, Ariz.

Rather than sticking to his job of enforcing the laws in Pima County, as well as investigating and solving crimes committed there, Sheriff Dupnik has seen fit to accuse Radio host Rush Limbaugh of creating an atmosphere of violence in our nation that led to the shootings in Tucson Saturday.

This is the same man who says he refuses to enforce Arizona's new immigration law because he thinks it's a bad law. Once again, is this what Sheriff Dupnik was elected to do?

I think Sheriff Dupnik has done more than anyone else since this tragedy to inflame rhetoric ... not that there's anything wrong with inflaming rhetoric. Dupnik and everyone else has rights to free speech that give us the privilege of inflaming rhetoric.

Still, Dupnik's exercising those rights at this moment in time does nothing to help investigate the crime, and to put the alleged shooter behind bars; it may even hinder law-enforcement efforts rated to this case. It's a question of judgement.

Sheriff Dupnik is the definition of a loose cannon, and he needs to be secured to the deck of Pima County, Arizona. The sheriff boasts of his 50 years experience in law enforcement. Perhaps it's time he retired to make way for a new sheriff who will:

1) show sensible judgement; and
2) enforce the laws of Pima County.

Projected cuts in military spending: DOD budget enters the land of make-believe

January 7, 2011 11:09 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

I'm reading with interest an online story in The New York Times today about planned reductions in the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps by 47,000 personnel, despite U.S. involvement in several different overseas conflicts. Gee, that sounds pretty serious.

Yet The Times story, entitled Pentagon Seeks Biggest Military Cuts Since Before 9/11 , waits until the sixth paragraph to point out these force reductions in the Army and Marines are not expected to begin until the year 2015.

Yeah, 2015. Four years, two congressional elections, and one presidential election away. In this politically charged climate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is predicting what's going to happen in the Pentagon four years in the future.

That's kind of like predicting how the weather will be in four years, except a whole lot less accurately.

So much is going to happen in the federal government between now and 1 Oct. 2014 -- the first day of federal fiscal year 2015 -- that no one ... NO ONE ... has any clue how the political landscape influencing defense spending will be by then.

I've been covering the DOD budget closely now for nearly 20 years, and I can't predict with any accuracy whatsoever even how the annual DOD budget request -- typically submitted in February or March -- will differ from the actual congressional appropriations that come out the following fall. Six months is an eternity in this business -- except where procurement of big-ticket new military platforms is concerned. There's no way anyone can tell where we're going to be in four years time.

I doubt that even Gates himself will be in the picture by 2015. I suspect by then he'll be happily retired from government service -- for good, if he's got any sense. Many of today's members of Congress will be gone by then, too. President Obama may not even be in the picture by then.

So why, I ask, are we making predictions that are being splashed all over The New York Times that are nothing more than flights of fancy? Sure, I think Pentagon spending is heading down over the next several years, but how in the world can we predict personnel numbers and dollar amounts this far in advance?

The truth is, we can't. It's a political stunt by the Obama Administration trying to show they're ready to get tough on defense spending. For those of us involved in the defense business, don't be too scared yet. There's a lot that will happen between now and then.

Second-generation Intel Core processor announcement triggers an avalanche of new embedded computing products

January 5, 2011 2:39 PM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

It was like an avalanche this afternoon in the embedded computing community, touched off by Intel's announcement of its 2nd Generation Intel Core processor family at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. These new chips have processor graphics built in, which promises to offer a new dimension in size and capability for today's graphics-heavy aerospace and defense systems.

What Intel is saying is the new Core processor family, which has popularly been known as "Sandy Bridge," will power more than 500 desktop and laptop PCs expected from major suppliers this year. Judging from the flood of announcements from embedded computing suppliers, however, the single-board computer industry is pouncing on this new technology, as well.

Emerson Network Power , GE Intelligent Platforms , Mercury Computer Systems , Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing , Kontron , and Extreme Engineering Solutions (X-ES) were first out the gate with new embedded computing products based on the second-generation Intel Core processors. Not only that, but LynuxWorks also is announcing software operating system support for the new chip. Many other announcements should be expected to follow.

With the 2nd Generation Intel Core processor family's built-in graphics processing capability, companies like NVIDIA, which specialize in graphics processors, may have reason to worry over their market share in the aerospace and defense industry.

Moreover, a CPU that combines the floating-point processing capability of the Intel Core i7 with graphics processing should open up a new frontier of integration for aerospace and defense applications in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). The potential to cram brawny image and other sensor-processing hardware on small platforms like unmanned aerial vehicles should get a lot of interest among major defense prime contractors and embedded computing suppliers.

We'll get to detailing all the new embedded computing products based on the 2nd Generation Intel Core processor family over the next several days.

The Intel Core i7 processor with its floating point capability was one of the biggest stories covered by Military & Aerospace Electronics in 2010. This year the second generation of this processor should have an equally big impact.

If Michelle Obama is pregnant, what might that mean for the defense budget?

January 3, 2011 10:46 AM by John Keller


Posted by John Keller

Okay, okay, so what if the rumors are correct that Michelle Obama is pregnant? I'm not saying it's true; I have no information on this whatsoever, but my question is, if Michelle Obama is indeed pregnant, what would that mean for the 2012 U.S. defense budget ?

A new baby on the way in any family is a blessing, but it's a big distraction, too. A Congress hostile to the Obama agenda will be seated this week, the government's entire 2012 budget proposal is due out within the next couple of months, and I'm wondering how President Obama is going to juggle the nation's business with his wife's pregnancy (if the rumors of Michelle Obama's pregnancy are true, and I'm not saying that they are).

So if the rumors are true (and I'm not saying they are), Michelle Obama would give birth sometime in late July. A baby hasn't been born to a sitting president and his family since 1963, and tragically that baby born to John and Jackie Kennedy only lived two days. A baby in the White House just isn't something that happens every day.

So what might a pregnant Michelle Obama mean for next year's defense budget? I'm betting a few more things might be snuck into the budget while the president is otherwise occupied. Maybe a new Ford-class aircraft carrier, or another Virginia-class fast attack submarine.

It wouldn't be hard to figure out how such a vessel might be named, now would it?